Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GERMAN LEATHER, IMPORTS.

Mr. WATERSON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much German leather has been imported to this country during this year; and if any of this is by way of reparation or indemnity?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): During the first nine months of this year the registered imports of dressed leather consigned from Germany amounted to 4,571 cwts., and of undressed leather to 126 cwts. No leather has been imported by way of reparation or indemnity.

Mr. WATERSON: Has any German leather been prevented from coming in as part payment of the indemnity?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question?

ENEMY DEBTS (BRITISH CLEARING HOUSE).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a letter from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce drawing his attention to the delays on the part of the Board of Trade's Clearing House for enemy debts in settling the proved claims of British holders of German Government and municipal bonds and their respective unpaid coupons; and whether he will now recognise the advantage of taking these particular British claims out of the hands of the Board of Trade's Clearing House at Stamford Street, S.E., and entrusting them to the Bankers' Clearing House, in view of the fact that the British joint stock banks are familiar with the process
of identifying, verifying, and encashing foreign Government municipal bonds and coupons, and, therefore, more able to wind up, without further delay, a position which a Government Department is apparently unable to handle expeditiously, notwithstanding the fact that the monetary instruments in question are of such a kind that confirmation by the German Clearing House is un necessary?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I think the inquiry of my Noble Friend is based upon a misapprehension. Although the British Clearing Office makes a preliminary examination of claims filed with them before transmitting them to the German Office, it is the latter which is concerned to satisfy itself completely as to the validity of the claim before admitting the debt as due through the Clearing Offices, and it is not practicable, therefore, to place the examination of claims of the nature referred to in the question in the hands of the Bankers' Clearing House. Nor is it the case that the examination of such claims by the German Office is a mere formality, since it is necessary to verify in every case that the holder of the bonds or coupons at the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace fulfils the requirements of the Treaty provisions in respect of nationality and place of residence, and that the bonds or coupons had not been transferred during the War.

Mr. A. SHORT: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what the percentage proportion is of repayment out of the total monetary amount of British claims lodged with the British Clearing House, Stamford Street, up to 15th August, 1920; what in particular is the monetary percentage of repayment of claims with respect to British-held German Government and municipal securities and their unpaid overdue coupons; and when it is proposed to give a definite date for repayment of the remaining claims?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The amount already paid to British creditors by the British Clearing Office is about 12 per cent. of the total face value of British claims lodged with that Office up to the 15th August. The latter total includes all
claims whether admissible or not. I regret that it would not be possible to ascertain the percentage in the case of the particular class of claim referred to in the second part of the question without the expenditure of a great deal of time and labour. In reply to the third part of the question, it is not possible to give a definite date at which the outstanding claims, so far as admitted or found due, will be ready for payment. As I have just explained to the Noble Lord the Member for Battersea, it is necessary to afford due opportunity for the verification of these claims, and some of them may of course have to go for settlement before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.

KEY INDUSTRIES AND DUMPING.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government is now prepared to introduce a Bill with the object of giving adequate protection to key industries and also to control dumping?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A Bill dealing with these matters is in course of preparation and will, I hope, be introduced this Session.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman give a definite date when this Bill will be introduced?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is quite impossible for me to give a definite date. The Board of Trade are anxious to proceed with the Bill, but it is quite obvious that we have not control of Parliamentary time.

Mr. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer if the question is repeated this day week?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A question of that kind ought to be addressed to the Leader of the House.

EXPORT CREDIT SCHEME.

Captain BOWYER: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the letter from the Federation of British Industries, of which extracts appeared in the Press on 19th October, with regard to certain modifications which appear desirable in the export credit scheme undertaken by the Government;
and whether, in the interests of British industry, he is prepared to adopt the recommendations contained in the letter?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My attention has been drawn to the letter in question, and I need hardly say that I am glad to take into consideration any views expressed by the Federation of British Industries. I should explain that the whole question of facilitating the utilisation of the export credits scheme has been under consideration for some time past. The Board of Trade have especially been in communication with the Treasury in regard to the proposal that the percentage of the cost of the goods to be advanced to the exporter should be increased from 80 per cent. to 100 per cent., which is referred to in the federation's letter, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that sanction has now been given for this increase in the proportion to be advanced, subject to recourse remaining as heretofore against the exporter in respect of 20 per cent. I will carefully examine the, other suggestions put forward by the Federation, but it would appear that some of these are based on misapprehensions as to the conditions governing this scheme.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say how far the communications from the Federation of British Industries control the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter was under consideration for months before any letter appeared from the Federation of British Industries, and a decision was taken entirely irrespective of the letter which appeared in the Press from the Federation of British Industries. I am bound to add that I am satisfied that the decision arrived at is a right one by the fact that it is supported by such a large number of manufacturers and traders in this country.

SILK GOODS.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several European countries, including Portugal, Roumania, Germany, Norway and Poland, have prohibited the importation of silk goods, with the result that not only are British
manufacturers unable to send silk goods to these markets, but that foreign-made silk goods which would normally go to those markets are being sent into this country at dumped prices; whether he is aware that there is serious unemployment and under employment (short time) in the silk industry in this country; and what steps he proposes to take to meet these conditions?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware that the importation of silk goods into the countries in question is prohibited, but I cannot say to what extent this may be a contributory cause of the considerable importation of silk goods into the United Kingdom which has taken place in recent months. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by efforts to secure the abolition of the prohibitions which have been imposed by the countries concerned with a view to restricting expenditure abroad on luxury goods. I am aware that the conditions of employment in the silk trade in the United Kingdom at present are far from satisfactory, and I am arranging for the reception of a deputation from the Joint Industrial Council of the silk industry, when the reasons and remedies for this situation will no doubt be discussed.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that there is a duty of 60 per cent. in the United States on imported silk fabrics going to that country, and that many hundreds of thousands of yards of silk fabrics made in the United States were imported into this country during the past year; and does the hon. Gentleman not think that here is a case where steps should be taken to remedy a preventible cause of unemployment in this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not sure that I followed the object of the question; but it is obvious that it would be improper for me in answer to a supplementary question to discuss the possibility of imposing a tariff in this country.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is not the mere fact of our not being able, owing to the American duty of 60 per cent., to send silk fabrics to America a reason why the importation from America into this country of hundreds of thousands of yards of manufactured silk should be prevented?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am quite aware of the facts, but in dealing with a question of this kind we must not overlook the effect of the rate of exchange between this country and America.

Mr. SAMUEL: Notwithstanding the possibly valid reason which the hon. Gentleman has given, what is to become of the poor girls and women who are thrown out of work in Yarmouth and Norwich?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think we should have an opportunity of meeting the President of the Board of Trade and discussing this when there is more time for it.

Dr. MURRAY: Where has the cheap suit business disappeared to?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is quite obvious that I have not got the particulars of every commodity.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

DIFFICULT SEAMS.

Major-General Sir N. MOORE: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the statements made that owners are working narrow and more difficult seams until control is abolished, the Government will take steps to obtain more definite information in regard to the localities referred to with a view to instructing the departmental inspectors of the Mines Department to report as to the accuracy or otherwise of these statements?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I still hope for the establishment of machinery within the industry for dealing with questions of this kind as soon as the present dispute is ended.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS' STRIKE.

TRIBUNAL INQUIRY.

Sir N. MOORE: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the statement made that as a result of the Government not carrying out in toto the Majority Report of the Sankey Commission the miners are not prepared to accept the offer of a tribunal, whether he will give an assurance that the award of
such a tribunal would be equally binding on both parties and would be accepted and acted upon by the Government?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Full assurances were given by the Government to the Executive Committee of the Miners' Federation that any decision given as to wages by any such tribunal would be accepted and carried out by the Government, and I do not think there can be any real misapprehension on the subject.

EARL HAIG'S APPEAL.

Mr. CAPE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the appeal by Earl Haig, in connection with the coal strike, has been issued at public expense; what is the expenditure involved in this and other publicity for the Government case; and whether a special tax is to be levied on coal owners to meet these costs, or whether the general public is to bear the cost of their defence?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have been asked to reply. The appeal by Earl Haig has not been issued at the public expense. The expense incidental to the publicity which the Government consider desirable to undertake in the public interest will be paid for out of public funds. Such publicity is not undertaken in defence of the coal owners, but of the community at large.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the minds of a very large number of organised workers of this country, the appeal issued by Earl Haig is an incitement to people to blackleg the miners?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am not responsible for the message, but I have seen it, and I cannot conceive how any reasonable person could put such a construction on it.

Mr. W. THORNE: I do, anyhow.

FLOODS, GALSTON AREA.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what measures are being taken to deal with mines in the Galston area rendered unworkable by the recent floods.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Notwithstanding the serious difficulties to be overcome, good progress is being made with the work of pumping out the accumulation of water and repairing the damage done to the surface works and shafts. The Mines
Department have been in close touch with the situation from the outset, and are lending all the assistance in their power towards expediting the reopening of the mines.

Mr. SHAW: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there will be a large pumping station which will meet the needs of the area?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether the arrangements have got as far as that, but I will inquire and let my hon. Friend know.

STANDARD PROFITS.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 19.
asked whether the mine owners are guaranteed their standard profits without any deduction in respect of the loss incurred by the cessation of work in the mines during the present dispute?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir. Mine owners will not receive their standard profits unless the aggregate profits of the industry are sufficient for this purpose. The guarantee given by The Coal Mines (Emergency) Act, 1920, that, in the event of the total profits of the industry being reduced below nine-tenths of the total standard profits, the reduction should be made good, only applies if and in so far as that reduction may have been caused by any order, regulation, or direction issued by the Controller, or by the Board of Trade, after the 1st January, 1920.

COAL CONSUMPTION (RESTRICTIONS).

Viscount CURZON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether something can be done to reduce to the barest minimum necessary the consumption of coal for pumping and the production of electricity and gas?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply to this question. Orders have been issued, summaries of which have been published in the Press, drastically restricting the consumption of coal generally. Further restrictions will be brought into operation if and when necessary.

Viscount CURZON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for instance, in such places as Kingston this week-end, although sunset was at 5.45, all the lights were on at 5.15?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That ought to have been referred by the Noble Lord to the local authority on the spot.

Mr. J. JONES: He has been reported too often himself.

Mr. KILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing a note to local authorities that they should make another appeal to users of electricity to curtail their requirements as much as possible?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think that as a whole people are fully aware of the necessities of the case. There is a Committee sitting representing the Metropolitan area, and I shall be very glad to call their attention to the apprehension to which reference is made.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of that Committee are divided in opinion on the subject and that some of them say they have four months' supply, if they are allowed to go on?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think the Committee have any division of opinion. Of course, everybody has a difference of opinion about a subject on which nobody has certain information as to the figures.

OUTPUT (MAXIMUM).

Mr. LAMBERT: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the importance of securing a larger output of coal, he will cause an impartial tribunal to be formed for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the reasons for the decreased output as compared with the pre-War period?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The discussions, with a view to the settlement of the coal dispute, have been based on the assumption that there will be joint examination and co-operation between the coal-owners and the miners, with a view to securing the maximum output. I hope, therefore, that the suggestion contained in the question will not be necessary.

COST OF LIVING.

Sir N. MOORE: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that the accuracy of the figures submitted by the Government in regard to the cost of living have not been accepted by a large section of the miners, the Government will appoint an independent
Committee of the House to verify their accuracy or otherwise?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend an extract from the "Labour Gazette" for March last, which explains in detail the methods employed in compiling the statistics relating to cost of living which are prepared each month in the Ministry of Labour. I am aware that it has been asserted, on the one hand, that the actual increase is greater, and, on the other hand, that it is less, than the published percentage, but the evidence adduced has, I am advised, been fragmentary, and no independent statistics have been compiled of a sufficiently comprehensive character to provide a justification for disputing the official calculations. As regards the suggestion that an independent Committee should be appointed to verify the accuracy of the statistics, my hon. and gallant Friend will no doubt be aware that these statistics were the subject of an investigation in 1918 by Lord Sumner's Committee on the Cost of Living, who reported that there was every reason to suppose that they were accurate and adequate for their purpose.

Sir N. MOORE: That was 1918. It is two years later now.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how you get the information upon which the Board of Trade figures of the cost of living are based?

Sir M. BARLOW: The figures are got together by a process of examination of a large number of details and a large amount of data from various sources. If the hon. Member likes I will furnish him with such published information as there is bearing an the method by which the figures are arrived at.

Mr. THORNE: Does the hon. Member ever consult the wives of the working men as to the cost of living?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

COTTON.

Mr. WATERSON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet finished his inquiry into the profits made by the Bell Spinning Company, as
promised on the 10th May last; and, if so, with what results?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: An investigation has been made by the Standing Committee on Prices of the Central Committee under the Profiteering Acts into the trading accounts, profit and loss accounts and balance sheets of the Bell Cotton Spinning Company and the Times Spinning Company. Pending the result of investigation into a number of other cotton spinning companies, the Central Committee have not expressed any opinion as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the profits made by these two companies.

CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

Mr. KILEY: 14.
asked how many Reports have been published as the result of investigations into prices, costs and profits by the Central Committee and sub-committees set up under the Profiteering Act; what have been the main recommendations of the Report in each case; and in how many cases these recommendations have been carried out?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Eleven Reports of investigations by the Standing Committee on Prices of the Central Committee, or by Sub-committees of the Standing Committee on Prices, into prices, costs and profits have been published, besides two Reports of investigations by a joint Sub-committee of the Standing Committees on Prices and Trusts. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of these Reports, which have been presented to Parliament, and he will see that in the great majority of cases no recommendations for specific action are made, but the findings are mainly on questions of fact. Recommendations for specific action are contained in the Reports of the Matches Sub-committee and the Motor Fuel Sub-committee. The Matches Report recommended that efforts should be made to secure adequate supplies of suitable timber for the matchmaking industry; and the attention of the Departments concerned has been drawn to this recommendation. The Motor Fuel Report, among other recommendations, suggested that maximum prices should be fixed, that the Government should control production and distribution, and that every possible means should be used to foster the production
of power alcohol and facilitate its distribution. With regard to the question of action on these recommendations, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 21st October to the hon. Member for East Nottingham.

Mr. KILEY: Arising out of the answer which I did not hear, are we to understand that the recommendations of these various committees have been acted upon?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As I have stated, the majority of the Reports do not contain any recommendations of specific action. In two cases in which specific action was recommended the Departments concerned have been notified in one case, and the other case was dealt with fully in the answer to my hon. Friend a few days ago.

CEMENT.

Major PRESCOTT: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of cement which Is delaying the completion of many large road undertakings and throwing considerable numbers of men out of employment; whether he can give any explanation as to why this material is not available for all works of public utility; and if he will take action in the interests of the unemployed and public authorities?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware of the present serious shortage of cement, which I understand is due to the difficulties experienced by the makers in respect of the supply of plant, fuel, and materials. I am causing the whole position to be investigated, but as at present advised I fear that any improvement in output can only be very gradual.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

EXPORT LICENCES.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether export licences are still being refused for goods destined for Soviet Russia; and, if so, on what legal grounds is this being done without a declaration of war or blockade?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Export licences are still being refused for the shipment of goods to Russia. The legal
authority for the existing prohibitions of export of goods to certain destinations without licence is Section 1 of the Customs (Exportation Restrictions) Act, 1914.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman inform me why his Department hamper British trade in this way, in view of the fact that there is considerable trade going on between Sweden and other neutrals and Soviet Russia; and why does he prevent British merchants doing trade in a country with whom we are not at war?

Sir P. LLOYDGREAME: The House has been fully informed on many occasions, both of the views and policy of His Majesty's Government, and also of the views of the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the 7th July last, did we not agree to permit trading relations being resumed with Russia; and, in view of that fact, is not this a distinct breach of faith, as great as any breach of faith, with Russia?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That is a singularly inaccurate description of the proposal which was put forward. The policy of His Majesty's Government was stated a day or two ago by the Leader of the House in reply to a question, and I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that the leaders of trade in this country decline to do business at all with Russia until they honour their pre-War debts?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I can assure the hon. Member that all the matters mentioned have been fully considered.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it accurate to say that there are firms in this country who have already made large contracts wit)'. Soviet Russia to the extent of £2,000,000?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is quite obvious that I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice. If my hon. Friend wishes to have specific facts relating to any transaction, I will endeavour to answer him.

BKITISH PRISONERS.

Viscount CURZON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present position with reference to the British officers, men and civilians held prisoner in
Russia by the Soviet Government; and whether it is proposed to allow Krassin and the personnel of the Russian trade and other delegations to remain in this country unless the release of these prisoners is immediately effected?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question was answered on Thursday last and. appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any more recent information, and whether he can tell us whether the Russian trade delegation is to remain hero indefinitely, while our prisoners are detained?

Mr. BILLING: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself stated in this House three months ago that no negotiations of any description would take place with Russia until these men were released, and that that was cheered to the echo in this House, and has he broken his word, or have circumstances altered?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should assume that I have broken my word. I gave my pledge to the House that there would be no negotiations, and there will be no negotiations, until these men have been released.

Mr. BILLING: What steps are actually being taken to get these men back from Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: That has already been repeatedly stated in this House, and I have nothing to add.

WAGES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) ACT.

Mr. KENYON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the lapsing of the provisions of the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act on 30th September last, he proposes to. introduce legislation to take its place.

Sir M. BARLOW: In reply to a question put on 4th August by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, my right hon. Friend outlined the policy of the Government on this matter and stated that it was not proposed to continue this Act beyond 30th September. The Act has now expired. On 5th October, however, my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting brought to my right hon. Friend
a representative deputation of trade unionists interested in this question, who urged that the Act should be extended for a time, at any rate as regards women workers, until the contemplated increase in the number of trade boards had taken place. My right hon. Friend has since had an opportunity of discussing the question with a representative group of employers, and is informed by them that they do not wish the Act to be continued under any circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting made a further suggestion that my right hon. Friend should call a joint conference between the parties. When this suggestion was put to the employers, they reminded him that the employers' representatives have at all times been prepared to meet the unions concerned, and this information was conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

TEA.

Mr. CAPE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Indian and Ceylon Tea Association that production be curtailed so that there may be a recovery in prices; and whether he will recommend that a commission be appointed to inquire into the various efforts which are being made by owners to restrict output?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For some time past large quantities of Indian and Ceylon tea have been sold at prices considerably below the cost of production, owing to the serious decrease in the demand for tea from Russia and other Continental countries. The Food Controller does not consider at present that it is necessary to adopt the course indicated in the last, part of the question.

ACCOMMODATION FOR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.

Colonel NEWMAN (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Health whether the use of a room in public buildings, the property of the ratepayers, has been
refused to representatives of Government Departments entrusted with the duty of securing and regulating the supply of food to the community, and what action he proposes to take.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have only seen newspaper reports of these cases. In the absence of special legislation the disposal of accommodation in buildings the property of a local authority is a matter within the discretion of the authority.

MESOPOTAMIA.

Mr. RAPER: 25.
asked the Prime Minister which department and/or departments of the Government are responsible for the British administration in Mesopotamia; and if His Majesty's Government have yet decided when they propose to fulfil their pledge of granting self-government to the Arabs in Mesopotamia?

The PRIME MINISTER: The administration of Mesopotamia is conducted by the High Commissioner, acting, for the present, under the instructions of the Secretary of State for India. As regards the second part of the question, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal informed the House on the 19th October, the new High Commissioner (Sir Percy Cox) only arrived in Mesopotamia on the 4th October. It appears necessary to await his recommendations before making a statement as to the next step to be taken to give effect to the fixed policy of His Majesty's Government of setting up an Arab State in Mesopotamia.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the arrangement whereby High Commissioners in Mesopotamia are responsible to the Secretary of State for India and to the Government of India to be permanent?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope not.

Mr. RAPER: 26.
asked what is the full scope of the powers and instructions given to Sir Percy Cox; if any preliminary Report has yet been received from him; and, if not, whether, in view of the unsatisfactory state of affairs in Mesopotamia, he will cable Sir Percy Cox to at once submit a preliminary Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Percy Cox was not furnished with precise instructions, but he was given a wide discretion
to frame proposals for giving effect as soon as possible to the policy of His Majesty's Government of setting up an Arab State in Mesopotamia. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer given on the 19th October in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Whitechapel.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether Sir Percy Cox, as High Commissioner for Mesopotamia, is under the direction and control of the War Office, the India Office, or the Foreign Office; whether the Middle Eastern Committee of the Cabinet still exists, and, if so, who composes it, and is it responsible for decisions of policy and issuing directions to the High Commissioners of Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and Aden; whether it is proposed to create a Middle Eastern Department, either under the Colonial Office or India Office, or under a separate Minister; whether all British officials appointed to mandatory areas in the Middle East will in future be appointed by and receive their instructions from the Colonial Office, the India Office, or the Foreign Office; and to whom will the High Commissioners report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Percy Cox, as High Commissioner for Mesopotamia, remains for the present under the direction and control of the Secretary of State for India, who, in all matters of importance, acts in close consultation with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. A Committee composed of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for India, and attended by representatives of the Admiralty, War Office, India Office, Foreign Office, and, when necessary, the Treasury, meets from time to time to secure co-ordination between the various Departments, and to give advice to His Majesty's Government on Middle Eastern affairs. The creation of a Middle Eastern Department is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, but no decision has yet been reached.

CIVIL SERVICE (BONUS).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state at what intervals the variable scales of pay of civil servants are revised in accordance
with the cost of living index figures; when the last revision took place; what are the present additions to the pre-War scale; and whether the percentage increases apply to all civil servants or only to those with salaries under a certain figure?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): With the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, the answer will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the promised answer:

The present bonus scheme for the Civil Service, which came into force last March, provides for revisions at intervals of four months during the first year of the operation of the scheme and thereafter for revision at intervals of six months. The last revision took effect as from 1st July, 1920, and involved an addition of one twenty-sixth to the amount of the bonus which had been payable in the period from 1st March to 30th June, 1920. The scheme is briefly as follows: As from 1st March, 1920, at which date the index figure for cost of living was 130, remuneration not exceeding 35s. a week on a pre-War basis was increased by way of bonus to the extent of 130 per cent. In the case of salaries exceeding 35s. a week and not exceeding £200 a year on a pre-War basis, 130 per cent. was payable on the first 35s. a week of salary and 60 per cent. on the remainder. In the case of salaries over £200 on a pre-War basis, 130 per cent. was payable on the first 35s., 60 per cent. on that part of salary between 35s. a week and £200 a year, and 45 per cent. on the remainder. For each five points rise or fall in the cost of living on the average of the four or six months included in the period prior to revision, the bonus so assessed is subject to increase or decrease at the rate of one twenty-sixth. The maximum bonus payable under this scheme is £750 a year. With the exception of a few principal officers who continue to receive bonus at the rate of £500 a year, the scheme now in force applies to the whole of the permanent Civil Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

TURKEY.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 29.
asked whether the British and Turkish Governments
have exchanged ratifications of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey; whether a de facto Turkish Government, which does not recognise the authority or orders of the Sultan's Government in Constantinople, remains in Asia Minor, and over what area does this Government's authority extend; whether this Government in Asia Minor is refusing to carry out the terms of the Peace Treaty; if so, what steps are being taken to enforce the Treaty; and whether this Government in Asia Minor is in alliance with the Government at Moscow and acts under the orders of Moscow?

The PRIME MINISTER: Neither Government has yet ratified the Treaty, but a Bill for that purpose has been drafted and will be introduced in this House at a very early date. The so-called Nationalist Government of Angora claims authority over North, Central and Eastern Anatolia, but such authority as it possesses is maintained by force and is to a large extent resisted by the inhabitants. The Angora Government does not recognise the Peace Treaty, but as ratification has not yet taken place, no enforcement of its terms upon the Nationalists has hitherto been called for. It is certain that the Nationalists are in communication with the Soviet Government, and an alliance between the two is said to have been concluded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any inducement to patriotic Turks to attempt to carry out such a Peace Treaty as is being imposed on Turkey? Is not our peace simply asking for an alliance between Moscow and the Angora Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. I think that the terms of the Treaty are exceedingly fair and certainly better than Turkey had a right to expect after the way she treated Britain and the other Allies.

HUNGARY AND TURKEY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to lay the Hungarian and Turkish Treaties of Peace before Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is intended to introduce the Bill dealing with both
Treaties as soon as possible during the present Session.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when it is intended to lay the Treaty with Turkey before the House, or where hon. Members can get a copy? It has not yet been published.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will inquire.

WAR CRIMINALS (TRIAL).

Captain TUDOR-REES: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether the trial of enemy criminals has yet been commenced: and, if so, with what result?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday last to questions on this subject.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is owing to delay on the part of the German Government that these trials have not taken place?

Sir G. HEWART: I do not think it is true to say that there has been any delay on the part of the German Government since the Spa Conference. With regard to what happened before that, the hon. Member is as well aware as I am.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: How many of these Germans will be available if and when we are able to secure their trial?

Sir G. HEWART: I cannot say.

Mr. J. JONES: Good job they are not the Lord Mayor of Cork!

Mr. BILLING: Has not the time come when it would be compatible with the dignity of the British Government to say that there is not now, and never was, any intention that these men should be tried?

Sir G. HEWART: No, it cannot be compatible with anyone's dignity to make a statement which is manifestly untrue.

SYRIA.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether there is any British representative or liaison official at Beyrout and Damascus, respectively, whether he can give any information
regarding the political and military situation in Syria; whether he has received from the Emir Feisal or King Hussein of the Hedjaz any representation regarding the carrying out by the British Government of the undertaking given to the latter of the pledges given by them before the Arabs entered the War as our allies; and, if so, what reply has been sent to the Emir Feisal or King Hussein?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are represented by a Consul-General at Boyrout, and it is intended to appoint a Consul to Damascus shortly. I have no recent information as to the military or political situation in Syria to give to the House. Several communications have been received from King Hussein and the Emir Feisal on the subject of the negotiations referred to. His Majesty's Government do not admit that they have failed to carry out any pledges then given. Both King Hussein and the Emir when he was here have been informed that there is no question of His Majesty's Government departing from the obligations entered into by them.

POLAND (EASTERN FRONTIERS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government intended, under Article X. of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to recognise and guarantee the eastern frontiers of Poland as drawn in the Russo-Polish Treaty of Riga?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question cannot arise until a Treaty has been signed and ratified by the two countries concerned, and has been registered with the Secretariat of the League in accordance with Article 18 of the Covenant.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether we have led the Polish Government to believe that we will guarantee in any way such a Treaty as they have drawn at Riga?

CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Mr. MILLS: 34.
asked the Prime Minister what are the measures proposed to replace the existing Liquor Control
Board relating to the supply of intoxicants, which expires on 25th October; and whether he will respond to the widespread appeal of workmen's organisations to retain the present Sunday hours in the evening, but to bring forward the morning opening and closing, namely, 12 a.m. to 2 p.m., or 12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m., as the Sunday dinner is the principal meal of the week?

Sir J. BUTCHER: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction that exists amongst members of working men's clubs by reason of the proposed alteration of the hours of opening for the sale of liquor in such clubs on Sundays to 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., whereas at present the hours of opening are 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.; what substantial grounds, if any, for such alteration exist; and whether he will give directions to the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to rescind their order for this alteration?

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 56.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the discontent arising from the reported decision to revert to the former hours of opening and closing of licensed premises on Sunday evenings; and whether he will state the reasons for such decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall answer these questions together. I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday last in answer to a question by the right hon. Member for East Woolwich and to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dartford on the 21st July.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the churches are in favour of the alteration of the Sunday hours from 7 to 10 o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicted dissent.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very wide feeling of dissatisfaction at the compulsory change of hours, and that the present hours are most suitable in every way?

Mr. MILLS: May I ask whether the Prime Minister would consult the representatives of working-class organisations knowing working-class habits, with a
view, not to extending the hours, but to making them more in conformity with the wishes of the people?

Mr. BILLING: The general belief is that the policy of the Government is gradually to force this country to become dry. Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether that is or is not the policy of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my hon. Friend that there are a good many people who take exactly the opposite view.

Mr. BILLING: Are they right?

The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the other questions, I have had many representations, both orally and in writing, on the subject, and I am fully alive to the fact that the whole position ought to be reviewed. We were in hopes of bringing in a Bill to deal with the matter, and we have got it ready, but one thing and another makes it very difficult to attend to these questions. There are other much more urgent questions being thrust upon us for consideration, and therefore we are quite unable to give that attention to this question which, I agree, its importance demands.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter between now and next Sunday—the whole thing could be done in about five minutes—and will he advise the Central Control Board to maintain the present order so far as Sunday evening opening is concerned?

Mr. BILLING: May I ask whether the future policy of the Government, as evidenced by their Bill, is to increase or decrease the present restrictions on the sale of alcohol?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it possible to postpone the coming into force of this new Sunday Order until the right hon. Gentleman has had time to give the matter consideration?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will communicatc that suggestion to those who have the matter in charge, and I will see what can be done.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he can do what he did last Session, namely,
appoint a small Committee of hon. Members to report to him and advise him on the subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will see.

Captain BOWYER: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the way in which the liberty of the citizens of North Bucks and elsewhere is curtailed and threatened by the activities of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic), and that the Board's regulations affect various clubs, often in the same locality, in totally different ways; and if he will say when this Board will be abolished so that every club throughout the country may have the same privileges and liberties?

The PRIME MINISTER: On the question of differentiation raised in the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on 24th June to the hon. Member for North Dorset, and as regards the latter part of the question, to the answer given to the hon. Member for Woolwich on Thursday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

INSURANCE (CIVIL DISTURBANCES).

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that property to the value of many millions of pounds has been insured in Ireland against loss arising from riot, civil commotion, or action by the forces of the Crown; is he aware that none of these risks is covered by ordinary policies of insurance, that the rates quoted for them by underwriters are extremely onerous, and in the majority of cases prohibitive; and, seeing that the Government is alone able to estimate the risks to which property in Ireland is exposed, can he inaugurate a scheme of Government insurance for Ireland similar to that undertaken with such success during the War?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have no information as to the amount of the insurances referred to in the first part of the question. It is I believe the case that the risks mentioned are not covered by ordinary policies of insurance, but the Government is not prepared to inaugurate a scheme of State insurance to cover such risks.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great deal of apprehension in Ireland in reference to this, and that many millions of pounds have already been effected in insurance of this class of risk? Is he further aware that in this country there is a considerable demand for the same class of insurance, although, of course, in a minor form?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware of all the apprehensions in Ireland.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: We ask you to protect us from them.

EXPANDING BULLETS.

Lieut. - Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether soft-nosed or other expanding bullets have been employed in Ireland in the attacks on police or military, or have been found on persons on being arrested; and, if so, whether notice will be given that in accordance with the practice obtaining in warfare any one illegally using or being found in possession of such ammunition shall, on conviction, be liable to the death penalty?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the latter part of the question in the negative.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the South African War, which was, after all, far more than a revolt against us, and was war properly so called, the British leaders issued such a notice which had a material effect in checking the use of expanding bullets by certain members of the Boer forces?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am fully aware of that, but the state of war which existed in South Africa does not now exist in Ireland. It would be necessary either to pass legislation or declare martial law in order to treat those found with such ammunition in the mariner suggested.

Sir N. MOORE: Are the soldiers serving in Ireland considered to be on active service?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is a matter for the Secretary of State for War, who is considering it from the point of view of the soldier.

SINN FEIN AND GERMANY.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will now
publish the documents found in the possession of the present leaders of Sinn Fein in 1918, which showed that there was an arrangement between these leaders and the Germans to attack us in 1918?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government consider that it is desirable that these documents should be published, provided that it can be done without giving away the source of the Government's information. The matter is now under consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Prime Minister still say that there was a plot in 1918 to give Germany help in Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the evidence of the facts by Colonel Repington in his Memoirs in this matter?

OUTRAGES AND REPRISALS.

Major BARNES: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, following the precedents of the Hunter and Milner Commissions, a Commission will later proceed to Ireland to inquire into the nature, causes, and extent of the outrages and reprisals committed there?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the course of the Debate last Wednesday.

Major BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that statements were made with regard to specific points, and that all the statements were pressing for an immediate inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: There was a very full opportunity afforded. The Debate extended over a whole evening, and I think the whole ground was covered

Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean there will be no Commission?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland

(1) whether, in view of the statements of the English correspondents in Ireland of responsible English journals that they themselves saw convincing evidence of the wounding and the flogging of men in the villages in the
1327
West of Ireland by officers of the Crown, the right hon. Gentleman persists in the denial that such outrages have occurred;
(2) whether since the last speech of the Chief Secretary incendiary fires and indiscriminate shootings have taken place at Dublin, Athlone and Bandon, and whether, as a result, inquiry has been made into these outrages;
(3) whether the attention of the Chief Secretary has been called to the passage in a speech of Governor Cox, a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, denouncing the policy of frightfulness in Ireland, including the burning of villages and the throwing of old women and men out of their houses, as comparable to the policy of the Turkish authorities in Armenia, and whether, in view of the horror which these transactions in Ireland are creating in America and the entire world, the Chief Secretary will announce the determination of the Government to put an immediate end to this policy of frightfulness?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I only received this question and the question of the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) at a quarter to two. I respectfully ask hon. Members who put down Private Notice questions to give me a little more time.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I regret the notice was so short. As a matter of fact, I sent my private notice question at one o'clock.

Mr. DEVLIN: Did you not see it in this morning's papers? It could have been read there!

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Naturally I desire to give the latest official information that I can to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who ask for it, but it is necessary usually to communicate with Dublin Castle, and it may be other Government Departments in different parts of Ireland, and it is very difficult to do this within three hours. I have, however, with the desire, but not with the hope, of making a satisfactory reply, drawn up this answer: I have no convincing evidence of the flogging and wounding of several men in the West of Ireland. I have no knowledge of incendiary fires and indiscriminate shootings in Dublin, Athlone, and Bandon, but I am making inquiries. I have seen the
report of the speech alleged to have been made by Governor Cox, and he obviously obtained his information from those hostile to the British Empire and to Anglo-American friendship. I believe the world is horrified at the murders of policemen and soldiers in Ireland, and I do not believe the world accepts the malignant untruths suggested in the question. The hon. Gentleman and the House will share with me the regret at the murder of two soldiers of the Essex Regiment, and the wounding of six more soldiers of the same regiment, in an ambush near Bandon on the 22nd instant.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that the representatives of the "Manchester Guardian," the "Times," and other English newspapers are enemies of the British Empire?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not say it, and I do not assert it.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that clear, precise, and specific charges of this character have been made by these English representatives of the great English journals and they have been published in this country: therefore, if he states that all who make these charges are enemies of the British Empire, does he declare that these gentlemen are enemies of the British Empire?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have answered that.

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the announcement is authoritative that the Government intend to employ as special constables in the North of Ireland members of the Ulster Volunteers, and whether during the recent disturbances in Belfast one of these special constables was convicted of looting a Catholic house; whether at Lisburn 300 special constables have already resigned their positions because a number of their colleagues have been convicted of looting Catholic houses: whether this scheme has been undertaken by the Government, to arm the men who organised and carried out the pogrom against Belfast Catholic workmen, and who have expelled 4,000 Catholic workmen from their employment; whether Parliament will be given an opportunity of discussing this organised conspiracy to place the lives, liberties, and property of 500,000
Catholics at the mercy of their political opponents armed by the British Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As has already been announced, the Government has decided to enroll well-disposed citizens in the special constabulary to assist the police in the preservation of peace. The enrolment is not confined to Ulster. It is true that three special constables have been committed for trial at Belfast on charges of looting, two being now on bail and one in custody. The strictest discipline, which is characteristic of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which this special constabulary is to assist, and under which it has to serve, will be carried out in the case of the special constabulary. It is true that some hundred special constables in Lisburn threatened to resign as the result of the charge against the three special constables, but did not do so. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the desire of the Government in enrolling the special constables is to obtain all possible help in restoring normal conditions in Ireland. There is, of course, no discrimination whatever against Roman Catholics. They will be welcomed to the Force. Some, indeed, have already joined.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over five weeks ago, before this policy of enrolling special constables was authoritatively announced by the Government, that an announcement was made at a meeting of those who organised this pogrom, that this was to be the policy of the Government. It was announced by the gentleman who organised the pogrom against the Catholics of Belfast. Is the Chief Secretary not aware of that?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, I am not aware of that.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman can read the newspapers. The right hon. Gentleman can get a report of the speech. [HON. MEMBRES: "Order, order!"] Order yourselves! We have not got the "Black and Tans" yet in the House of Commons, though we have the savages!

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put what he has to say in interrogative form.

Mr. DEVLIN: Yes, Sir. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a speech of the leader of this pogrom by which four or five thousand innocent men have been driven from their employment—I mean of the gentleman who announced the Government's policy five weeks ago before it was ever mentioned authoritatively by Dublin Castle or the Chief Secretary? How did this gentleman get to know what was the intention of the Government in organising the special constables to exterminate the Catholics of Belfast?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have no knowledge of the facts as set out by the hon. Gentleman. The question of enrolling special constables has engaged the attention of the Irish Government for many months past. I myself have never seen why well-disposed citizens should not be enrolled in the support of their own homes and with their fellow-citizens in support of the community in which they live, against anyone wishful to disturb the peace.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in order to maintain law and order in three provinces of Ireland he has turned that country into a veritable hell? Why in doing so are the forces of the Crown not sufficient without bringing in the political partisans and opponents of the Nationalists? Why are the forces of the Crown not engaged solely without the introduction of these elements in maintaining law and order in the other province in Ireland?

At the end of Questions,

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the renewal, since the last Debate in the House, of a policy of frightfulness in Ireland by indiscriminate shootings, by floggings, by incendiary fires, and by arming of Orange volunteers in Ulster as special constables.

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter Past Fight this evening.

MALICIOUS INJURY CLAIMS.

Major BARNES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government will consider claims for compensation for the destruction of property in Ireland by servants of the Crown?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The liability to pay compensation for malicious injuries is laid by law upon the local authority irrespective of the agency by which the injuries are inflicted, and the Government cannot at the present time undertake to relieve local authorities of any part of their liability. The Government are prepared to consider on its merits any hard case of an innocent sufferer with a view to meeting it so far as funds available allow, by exercise of the powers contained in the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act and Regulations made thereunder with respect to local authorities which for any reason refuse to perform their duties.

Major BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what way the people who are suffering can collect the compensation from the local authorities?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the local authorities fail to carry out the law they cannot collect it from the local authorities.

Major M. WOOD: Are we to understand that the local authorities are to make good damage caused by soldiers?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In all the cases brought to my notice, yes; because the soldiers have made the damage in acts of legitimate self-defence.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say if the parties are unable to collect the compensation who will ultimately pay the compensation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As far as innocent persons are concerned I answered it in my reply.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the case of Balbriggan was one of legitimate self-defence, and does the Crown refuse to pay anything in that case and expect the local authority of Balbriggan to do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In reference to that case the county court judge has not yet assessed the damage, and when he does I will consider that case.

Lieut. - Commander KEN WORTHY: Was that a case of legitimate self-defence? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Major BARNES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will say what are the terms of service and rates of pay under which the force in Ireland popularly known as the Black and Tans is recruited?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The men described as Black and Tans are not a separate force, but are recruits to the permanent establishment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The large majority are ex-service men recruited in Great Britain. Their terms of service and rates of pay as members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are similar to those of the police forces of Great Britain, and are based on the recommendations of the Desborough Committee.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether members of the Royal Irish Constabulary discharged through ill-health with under 25 years' service since 1st April, 1919, have not yet had their pensions increased under Section 4 of the Police Act, 1919; and, if so, whether any explanation can be given for the delay in dealing with the pensions of men who have lost their health in the discharge of police duty in Ireland and are now finding it difficult to exist upon their former pensions?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The revised pensions of men who have been pensioned on the ground of ill-health after completion of not less than 15 years' service are in course of payment. The cases of men with less than 15 years' service are now being considered. Men who have been incapacitated by wounds or injuries arising out of the present disturbed state of the country are being retained on full pay for an extended period, and the amount awarded to them under the Criminal Injuries Act is being paid to them without delay.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great distress in Ireland owing to the delay in the paying of the increased pensions of
these pensioners, and will he do all in his power to accelerate it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am doing so.

ASSISTANT UNDER-SECRETAEY FOR ULSTER.

Mr. HOGGE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state when the Supplementary Estimate for the salary of the new Under-Secretary for Ulster will be presented, and when an opportunity will be given for its discussion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the recently appointed Assistant Under-Secretary for Ulster. It is hoped that this expenditure can be met out of savings on the Vote, in which case a Supplementary Estimate will be unnecessary.

Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that we will have no opportunity of discussing this new appointment for a separate part of Ireland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question should not be addressed to me.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the Business of the House, to say whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing this change of policy, or elaboration of policy, in the appointment of a new Assistant Secretary for Ulster?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a matter for the Leader of the House.

PARCEL POST.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: (by Private Notice)
asked the Postmaster-General is he aware that during recent months Ireland has suffered very keenly through merchandise being held up by shipping disputes, and that the withdrawal of the Irish Parcel Post will in consequence be felt more severely in Ireland than elsewhere, and seeing that steamers will be kept running for passengers and mails, can he see his way to give even a restricted parcel service?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): Owing to the withdrawal of labour at certain Irish ports the normal routes for the conveyance of parcel mails to and from Ireland have, for some time past, been seriously curtailed. With a view to saving coal the Government have found it necessary to restrict still further
the remaining services available, and I had no option but to suspend the Parcel Post to and from Ireland. I fear that with the present sailings even a restricted Parcel Post Service would be impracticable.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the Parcel Post still run to the North of Scotland and South of England and also to the Channel Islands; and is there not danger of the right hon. Gentleman's action being regarded in Ireland as partial?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: All these services have been considerably curtailed.

Mr. SWAN: If the Government is successful in the policy of extermination, will it not save the need of this Parcel Post?

Major O'NEILL: Cannot some exception be made with regard to parcels containing foodstuffs? A very large number of people in this country are depending every day upon articles of food such as eggs and butter being sent by Parcels Post to England.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to continue the service from those ports which are still open and from which steamers are running, and to limit this stoppage to those ports the right hon. Gentleman mentioned where there is no steamer service?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am told there is no cargo space available [Hon. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one little town in Ireland there is a loss of £500 a day through the stoppage of the Parcels Post and it is threatened with having to close the works?

ALDERMAN MCSWINEY (DEATH).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the wife and sisters of the late Alderman McSwiney were refused permission to see him on Saturday and yesterday; what was the reason for this refusal, and whether now they will be allowed to view the body?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt):: The Sisters have not been admitted for the
last two days; the wife has been allowed to see him, when medical conditions permitted. The directions were all given purely on medical grounds. The relatives will be allowed to view the body.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I ask if the sisters were forbidden permission to see their brother on medical grounds? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Saturday they were told at Brixton that the reasons were not medical, but that the orders were given from the Home Office?

Mr. SHORTT: The reasons were entirely medical, because of the extremely bad effects they had upon the condition of their brother.

INDUSTRIAL LIFE ASSURANCE.

Major ENTWISTLE: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the need of legislation to carry out the recommendations of Lord Parmoor's Select Committee on Industrial Life Assurance; and if he will introduce such legislation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that the Committee's recommendations involve legislation, but I am afraid that it is out of the question for us to deal with the matter in the present Session.

LOCAL RATING.

Mr. HURD: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the burden imposed upon the community by the heavy and progressive increase of local rates, especially for national services; and what steps the Government are taking to enact this Session an equitable basis of division of local expenditure between the national and local exchequers in accordance with the Government's intention, as explained to this House on 17th July, 1919?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 29th March last my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed my hon. Friend that it would be quite impossible to make a full settlement of this complicated question in the present Session, and the prospect has certainly not improved since then. In the course of the last few years
the Government have dealt with the grants for education and police, on the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee of 1914, and provision was made in the Budget of this year for instituting a comprehensive system of grants for roads. In addition, since the Committee reported, large new grants have been introduced for several public health services, and the State has come to the assistance of local authorities on housing and land settlement to an extent never contemplated by the Committee.
Apart from a possible consolidation of the numerous public health grants, the only considerable reforms proposed by the Committee in regard to grants for semi-national services, which have not been carried out, relate to the Poor-law service, and (as the hon. Member is aware) this matter is now engaging the attention of my right hon. Friend.
The financial result of all these changes is that although the total amount raised by rates in England and Wales has approximately doubled since 1913–14, the Government grants in aid of local taxation services have trebled, and this over a period in which national taxation has increased sixfold. In view of these figures I can hold out little prospect of our being able (when we come to deal with the remaining questions of local taxation reform) to do much more in the way of relief of rates than to attempt an equitable readjustment of the existing Government subventions.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grievance that is felt in the country is as to the incidence and the way in which those taxes are collected, and that there is growing resentment on the part of local authorities that they should be called on to collect money for expenditure over which they have no control?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of what money they collect over the expenditure of which they have no control. I know that the Treasury find a great deal of money in and of their expenditure over which it has absolutely no control.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing dissatisfaction at the various anomalies that exist in the assessment of rating and at the whole rating system of rating in this country, and would he appoint a Commission,
similar to the Income Tax Commission which sat last year, to go into the whole question of local taxation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend's question is one of great importance, but is not pertinent to the question on the Paper. He has put his finger on what I think is the real grievance, which is not that the taxpayer is contributing too little to natural services, but it is that the charge among the ratepayers is improperly or unevenly or unfairly distributed. I agree with him. but on that matter he should address his question to the Minister of Health.

Major BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inequality of incidence is very largely produced by legislation of the present Session with regard to housing and other matters?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not true, or, as I do not wish to be rude to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think it is an inaccurate statement.

Major BARNES: Is it not the fact that those who are responsible for the assessment of rates in this country have approached the Government on this matter by deputation to the Ministry of Health?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously questions relating to deputations received by or representations made to the Ministry of Health should be addressed to the Minister of Health.

Major ENTWISTLE: Has the Government considered the question whether land is bearing its fair share of local taxation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand the contention is that land bears an undue share of local rating.

Mr. MURRAY: Does the Prime Minister agree to that?

Colonel NEWMAN: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the burden now imposed on that section of the community which is assessed for rates; and will he give a day to discuss their position?

Dr. ADDISON: I propose at an early date to lay before the House a Paper containing detailed information on this
subject. The question as to a discussion in the House might perhaps be deferred until hon. Members have had an opportunity of seeing the Paper.

Colonel NEWMAN: Supposing the ratepayers go on strike for 2s. reduction, shall we get a day then?

Dr. ADDISON: I should welcome a discussion. We can have a discussion when we know the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SCOTTISH RAILWAYS AND ROADS.

Major GLYN: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any decision has yet been reached, by means of consultation with Scottish railway companies, concerning the future management and organisation of the Scottish railways; whether, as a result of such consultations, it has been shown that those responsible for railway management in Scotland are not in favour of the proposals of the Ministry of Transport; and whether, under these circumstances, he is willing to invite Scottish railway companies to submit proposals which may be made public, together with the views of the Ministry of Transport upon this matter?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The proposals outlined in Command Paper 787 are still the subject of discussion between myself and representatives of the Railway Companies' Association, which includes the Scottish railway companies, and no final result has been arrived at. Throughout the conversations I have always expressed my readiness to consider any alternative or modiefid proposals which the Association may desire to put forward.

Major GLYN: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the urgent need to carry out certain improvements and repairs to highways in Scotland, including the provision of new bridges, he is arranging to employ as many men out of employment as possible during the winter months, after consultation with the local authorities concerned; whether there is any reason to fear that Scotland will not be given a full share of the money made available for road improvement and repair resulting from the new taxes during this winter; and if any specially urgent
cases due to accidents to bridges, storm water to road surfaces, etc., may be dealt with at once?

Sir E. GEDDES: The actual work of improvement of highways and bridges in Scotland is being undertaken, as is the custom generally, by the local authorities responsible for such highways, who directly control the employment of all labour upon these works. There is no reason to fear that Scotland will not get its proper share of whatever money is available for road improvement and maintenance during the next financial year. The local authorities are continuously in negotiation with the Roads Department, and, so far as funds are available, grants are being made towards the cost of specially urgent cases, such as those defined by the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when his proposed road scheme will be ready?

Sir E. GEDDES: Very shortly, I believe. The proposals of the local authorities, I think, have all been received now, and the matter is in a very advanced state.

MOTOR DRIVING TESTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the constantly increasing number of accidents on the roads, he will consider the practicability of instituting a driving test for every driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle in addition to or in lieu of the, 5s. driving licence which is now imposed?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Foreman) on Tuesday last, a copy of which I am sending to him. The question he specifically refers to is covered by that reply also.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the War ever-increasing numbers of incompetent drivers have come upon the roads, causing increased accidents: and having special regard to that, will he consider the advisability of imposing a severe test before any man can take a lorry on the road?

Sir E. GEDDES: I think that will be found to be answered by the answer I have referred to.

RAILWAY AGREEMENTS.

Mr. HIGHAM: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied that his Ministry has a full and adequate check upon expenditure, upon economical operation, and proper accountancy of the railway companies under the railway agreements; and what check existed before the Ministry of Transport was created?

Sir E. GEDDES: From August, 1914, to August, 1921, the net receipts of 1913 are guaranteed to the railway companies, and the result of the Agreements is to throw upon the Government any increase in working cost. The position in regard to the check exercised over the railway expenditure prior to the formation of the Ministry of Transport is described on pp. 4–5 of Cmd. Paper 654. Since the formation of the Ministry, steps have been taken to institute a closer check upon railway expenditure in several important directions, as has been explained in the Debates on the Estimates. Further, a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Colwyn has now been set up to consider and report, inter alia, whether, with due regard to cost, any further steps should be taken to secure that the interests of the State in reference to the Railway Agreements are adequately safeguarded. It is inadvisable that I should anticipate the report of the Committee.
As regards operating economies, I took steps at once to collect and tabulate important cost figures and efficiency data on comparable lines to those compiled in all the principal countries in the world with the object of providing a check on operation. The published results are now under consideration both by the companies and by the Ministry of Transport. They are very illuminating, and indicate many weak spots.

Mr. HIGHAM: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport if the railway companies are spending the sum of £300,000,000 a year of Government money, and have no direct interest in economy; and is that the result of the agreements made by the Government in 1914, which are continued for two years after the War?

Sir E. GEDDES: The financial arrangements made by the Government with the
railway companies upon the outbreak of war have the effect indicated. The period, which was fixed at two years after the termination of the War, which has not yet been officially declared, has been curtailed by the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and now ends on the 15th August, 1921.

Mr. HIGHAM: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the strike and the increased cost of living is going to adversely affect the net revenue of the railways for the current year; and is it possible to utilise the £36,000,000 which the companies had in their possession for arrears of maintenance, and so avoid the necessity for increasing fares and freight charges again?

Sir E. GEDDES: The coal strike, concessions to the staff consequential upon earlier agreements in regard to the principal classes, and the increased cost of living have already adversely affected the estimates of railway receipts for the current year. Any continuance or extension of strikes, and any further increase in the cost of living must result in a most serious deficiency on railway working.
A very rough estimate shows that the strike will cost the taxpayer in respect of the railway guarantee some two to three millions a week. The sum which the companies have debited to working expenses as part provision against arrears of maintenance under the financial arrangements is not available for the purpose indicated. It is part of the invested funds of the companies. As the hon. Member is aware, a Committee has been appointed to consider and report upon the agreements. It will meet shortly, and I am sending copies of his question and this reply to the Chairman.

Sir J. RANDLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when this Report of Lord Colwyn's Committee may be expected; is it a question of weeks or months?

Sir E. GEDDES: I cannot say when the Report may be expected, as the Committee have not met yet. They were appointed during the Vacation, but I hope it will not be very many weeks before they do report.

Mr. SWAN: Are we to understand that all the increased cost will not affect the
pockets of the railways companies' shareholders?

Sir E. GEDDES: The increased cost, as has been stated in this House several times before, of working the railways under the agreement made with the railway companies in 1914, does not give them any direct interest in increased or decreased expenditure, so that any increased cost, in fact, falls either on the user of the railways or on the taxpayer.

Mr. SWAN: They are guaranteed.

Major MOLSON: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Committee recently appointed to look into railway agreements, as announced in the Press of 7th October, 1920, consisting of eight members under the chairmanship of Lord Colwyn, receive fees or entail expense on the public?

Sir E. GEDDES: No members of this Committee receive fees; no special expense, excepting a small sum for printing, etc., will be involved.

Major MOLSON: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the legal expenses, including the fees of counsel employed by the railway companies and the railway managers' expenses, are chargeable to public funds through the amount guaranteed by the Government to rail ways under dividend funds or under any other heading?

Sir E. GEDDES: Generally speaking, legal expenses are a proper charge to working expenses and fall to be borne by the Government, but no general ruling can be laid down applicable to all such expenses or to every company.

RAILWAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. BRIANT: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport, who are the members of the Railway Advisory Committee; how many times it has met; and when was its last meeting?

Sir E. GEDDES: The membership of the Railway Advisory Committee was announced in this House on 8th December, 1919, and I am sending the hon. Member a list. The Advisory Committee met on 25th February. A further meeting is to be held this week.

Major MOLSON: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport what remuneration the six members of the Railway Rates Advisory
Committee receive; whether it is in the form of annual salaries or fees per meeting; and what length of time they have been sitting and how many meetings have been held?

Sir E. GEDDES: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle East (Major Barnes) on the 8th March last, the Chairman of the Rates Advisory Committee, who was appointed on the nominations of the Lord Chancellor and who devotes the whole of his time to the duties of his appointment, is paid a salary of £5,000 per annum as a personal arrangement until 15th August, 1921. No other payment, whether by way of annual salaries or fees per meeting, has so far been made by the Ministry to the remaining members of the Committee. The Committee was appointed on 27th October, 1919, and has held 76 meetings of which 42 were held in public.

MOTOR VEHICLES DUTY.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HIGKS: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the Estimate of the road taxes for next year and the mode in which he proposes to utilise the same; and what arrangement he has made for anticipating the taxes four years in advance?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Estimate of the receipts and expenditure under the schemes of taxation of mechanically-propelled vehicles and the classification of roads are set out on pages 16 and 17 of the Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles in Great Britain and Ireland (Command Paper 660). The hon. Member will sec that provision is made therein for improvements and arterial road construction. It is now proposed to proceed with such work, anticipating so far as may be necessary the revenue under this head until, and including, the year 1923.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, having regard to his repeated pledges to the motor community when they agreed to the increased taxation on motor cars, he is prepared to amplify the Prime Minister's statement dealing with road construction during the coming winter; whether he is able to assure the House that the whole
of the fund will be employed for necessary road maintenance, construction, and improvement; whether a proper proportion is being retained for road improvements; and whether he will take care that in dealing with this fund the primary purpose will be the interests of the roads and road users rather than the needs of unemployment which is a national charge?

Sir E. GEDDES: In the Report of the Departmental Committee upon which the taxation of motor vehicles for the Budget was based, an estimate of expenditure for maintenance and improvements separately was given. The anticipation of the improvement programme in no way interferes with the classification and maintenance grants then proposed. The Government in deciding to expedite the road improvement programme had specifically in mind the spirit of the understanding with the Mechanical Road Using Community. As to the last part, the hon. Baronet is no doubt aware of the provisions of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, under which regard must be had to the state and prospects of employment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the very heavy cost of unemployed labour and its inefficiency, will any consideration be given to that with regard to payment out of the Road Fund?

Sir E. GEDDES: That is a matter that is being fully considered.

CARTERS (TRADE DISPUTE).

Colonel NEWMAN: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information to give the House relative to the dispute in the transport industry; what is the average weekly wage at present earned by a carter in the London area; and when was the latest increase granted?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have been asked to reply to this question. At Leeds and Bradford the carters struck work last Thursday. The men are also on strike at Keighley, Bingley and Skipton. At Huddersfield it is understood that the carters will strike on Wednesday night. The Employers' National Organisations last Wednesday, after an interview with Sir David Shackleton, stated that they were willing that their local associations should discuss the matter locally with the representatives of the trade unions con-
cerned. These local negotiations are now taking place. The wages of carters in London area at present range from 66s. per week for the driver of a one-horse vehicle (heavy single) to 77s. per week for the driver of a four-horse vehicle. Overtime payments or increased hourly rates are given for work in excess of 48 hours per week. The last increase, which was 5s. per week, was given in March, effective as from the beginning of April.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the new transport volunteers called for by the Government have been guaranteed a rate of wages?

Sir M. BARLOW: I was not aware that volunteers had been called for by the Government.

EXCURSION TRAINS.

Mr. GILBERT: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of excursion trains which have been run by the various railway companies since August to this month and the number of passengers carried by these trains; and if the provision of such trains has meant increased profit revenue to the various companies?

Sir E. GEDDES: The information required is not yet available, but arrangements have been made to include in the four-weekly railway statistics particulars of the number of excursion passengers carried and the receipts therefrom. So far as I can judge from the returns already received, the provision of excursion facilities in August was financially justified.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. ADAMSON: Might I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the resumption of negotiations in connection with the coal strike and the advisability of taking no action calculated to impede any movement towards a settlement, the Government will refrain from proceeding with the Emergency Powers Bill until the result of these negotiations is known, and withdraw the Bill altogether in the event of a settlement being reached?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The Government have considered the question, and we believe that it is necessary to proceed with this Bill. The reasons which have induced us to come to that conclusion will be stated by me in the few remarks with which I will introduce the Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: Will the Government not reconsider the question in the light of the Prime Minister's statement on Thursday, when, speaking in this House, he intimated that he hoped no precipitate action would be takn by anyone? In view of the fact that the strike has lasted a week, that a million men are directly affected and probably another million indirectly affected, that practically no disturbances of any kind have occurred, which is a tribute to the common sense of our people, and that the Government could get the Bill in any day, would it not be taken by those outside as a generous act on the part of the Government if they were to withdraw it now?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend in thinking that our proceeding with this Bill is in any sense provocative. It is impossible to give the reasons for that view in answer to a question, but, as I have said, I shall endeavour to do so in introducing the Bill.

Mr. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it is not so much the effect upon this House as the effect upon those outside? While the House generally may understand and appreciate the situation, it would be mistaken outside.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure my right hon. Friend that all these considerations have been in our minds. We do not think that the view he has expressed is the view which will be found to be held.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In view of the very great importance of the measure about which questions have already been asked, will the right hon. Gentleman limit the proceedings of this House to-day to the Second Reading?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I had hoped to get the whole of the proceedings to-day, but I am not at all anxious to make a point of that, and, if I find that there is a general feeling in the House that it would
be better to take the Second Reading today and the subsequent stages to-morrow, I shall be quite ready to adopt that course.

Mr. BILLING: Might I ask whether it is proposed to proceed with the Emergency Powers Bill in the event of the Irish Debate going on till 11 o'clock?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, we shall endeavour to secure the Second Reading to-day.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Emergency Powers Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 54.

Taylor, J.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.
Wise, Frederick


Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)
Wason, John Cathcart
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)
Woolcock, William James U.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Whitla, Sir William
Worthlngton-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Tickler, Thomas George
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Tryon, Major George Clement
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Vickers, Douglas
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)
Younger, Sir George


Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)



Waring, Major Walter
Wilson-Fox, Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest

Division No. 325.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Gange, E. Stanley
M'Micking, Major Gilbert


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Agg-Gardner, Sir Janes Tynte
Gardiner, James
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Bagley, Captain E. Asliton
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gilmour Lieut.-Colonel John
Manville, Edward


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glyn, Major Ralph
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Goff, Sir R. Park
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Barlow, Sir Montague
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Moles, Thomas


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Barnett, Major R. W.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.


Barnston, Major Harry
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Gregory, Holman
Mobre-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Greig, Colonel James William
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris, Richard


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Neal, Arthur


Betterton, Henry B.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. p. (Finchley)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Blair, Reginald
Hanna, George Boyle
Nield, Sir Herbert


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Borwick, Major G. O.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hewart,. Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Parker, James


Bridgeman, William Clive
Higham, Charles Frederick
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hills, Major John Waller
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
Hinds, John
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Percy, Charles


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perring, William George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Howard, Major S. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Butcher, Sir John George
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Pratt, John William


Carr, W. Theodore
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Purchase, H. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Randles, Sir John S.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Clough, Robert
Jephcott, A. R.
Reid, D. D.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jesson, C.
Remnant, Sir James


Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lindsay, William Arthur
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)


Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)
Lloyd, George Butler
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Denison-Pender. John C.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Seddon, J. A.


Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Donald, Thompson
Lorden, John William
Simm, M. T.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Duncannon, Viscount
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Starkey, Captain John R.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lynn, R. J.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.
Stewart, Gershom


Fell, Sir Arthur
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Sturrock, J. Leng


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A.
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sugden, W. H.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macmaster, Donald
Sutherland, Sir William


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Sexton, James


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hogge, James Myles
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Briant, Frank
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Casey, T. W.
Klley, James D.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Waterson, A. E.


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Lawson, John J.
Wignall, James


Dawes, James Arthur
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mills, John Edmund
Wintringham, T.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



Glanville, Harold James
O'Connor, Thomas P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne


Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is not intended to apply, and could not by any possibility apply, to any ordinary industrial dispute between employers and workmen, on any question affecting strikes to raise the conditions of their lives. It is not intended to apply to such a strike, and it could not by any possibility apply to it. It is, therefore, quite beside the mark to suggest, as has been suggested, that this Bill is an attack upon trade unions, because it is nothing of the kind. On the contrary, if hon. Members will consider what is the nature of the powers which would be required in such an emergency, they will see that there will be quite as much justification, and I think a great deal more, for saying that it is an attack upon the rights of private property in this country. This Bill can only come into operation and apply in the event of certain contingencies arising. These contingencies are described in the first Clause of the Bill, and I will read the governing words to the House. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), provides:
lf at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on such extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light or other necessities, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community or any substantial portion of the community of the essentials of life
Then, and then only, will this Bill come into operation. It is my belief—indeed I am sure—that the powers for which we ask in this Bill are possessed by the Government of every great country in the world to-day. More than that, Parliament itself in the past has recognised that there is a marked distinction between an ordinary industrial dispute, and action which interferes with the life of the community. For example, in the Act of 1875, it was made not only illegal, but it was made a criminal offence for anyone engaged in supplying the esentials of life to strike without
giving sufficient notice That is the position.
Such an emergency would be a very critical thing in the life of this country, and there is nobody in the House who doubts that such an emergency might arise. We have had experience of it. We know in some degree what it might mean. In connection with the railway strike at the beginning of last year, it is certain that if the Government had not then been able to exercise the powers which are asked for in this Bill, it would have been quite impossible for them to take the steps which were taken, in order to supply the community with the necessities of life at that time. Our experience alone has made it plain to us that not only would this Government, but in my belief no Government, would be able to under take to deal with such a situation in such a contingency, without the powers which we are asking from the House of Commons.
What is the nature of those powers and the emergency? It is obvious that if such a contingency arose, it would be necessary for the Government, in order to prevent people in this country from being starved, to take and keep under their own control all the food of this country. Without that power the nation might starve. It does not apply to food only. I am glad to say—and I gladly endorse what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), as to the peaceful nature of the coal miners' strike—the contingency in regard to the coal miners' strike could not arise until the strike has lasted much longer than it has now. The House of Commons must realise that the time might come when, if we had very cold weather, there might be huge stocks of coal held up, and kept by those who owned them at extravagant prices, and available only to those who could pay extravagant prices. It is obvious that if we are to deal with a situation of that kind, we must have the power, if necessary, not merely to take possession of that coal, but to ration and distribute it amongst those of the nation who require it. It is equally obvious that we must have under our control the means of transferring those necessaries of life. We must have the power to commandeer, for example, any vehicle of any kind which is necessary to transfer these
essential commodities from where they are not required to where they are most required. That is the kind of power for which we are asking in this Bill.
I would remind the House that, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, we had these powers in connection with the railway strike to which I have already referred. I think it is possible—but I have not examined this point minutely—that by the restrictions laid on these Regulations the powers necessary are not now available: but, apart from that, the Government have come definitely to the conclusion that in an emergency of that kind we should rest our powers not upon an Act framed to deal with the common enemy, but on an Act which is passed by the constitutional authority of this country to deal with the situation as it arises. That is the reason why this Bill is not only necessary, but why we should proceed with it at once. Any of these powers taken under the Defence of the Realm Regulations are not open to examination by Parliament. In the whole framing of this Bill our aim has been to put the power in the hands of recognised constitional authority of this country.
In the Bill these Regulations cannot have effect for any considerable length of time until they have been submitted to the House of Commons, and have received approval. From that point of view, it is obviously much better to deal with the situation under a special Bill than under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. It is obvious that it is quite impossible to give in detail the steps which it might be necessary to take. It is equally obvious that the powers must be very wide, because it is emergency legislation, to deal with a situation the full effects of which nobody can foresee. It is impossible to put into an Act of Parliament precisely every Regulation which it will be necessary to adopt.
I hope I have said enough to show the House of Commons that should a contingency arise, these powers are absolutely necessary, not to this Government alone, but to any Government which tries to carry on the life of the nation under such conditions. I think there must be a small minority who think we should not have these powers at all. There are two forms of criticism suggested against the Bill. The first is that it is a Bill to deal with an emergency, and that it should not be made a part of the general
law of the land. That is true, and I think it is necessary. From the point of view put at Question time—that in proposing this Bill we are provocative—I would remind the House that this Bill has been drafted for some months, and that, apart from the present difficulty, the-Government had decided that it must be carried this Session, because obviously no Government could be left without such" powers when the Defence of the Realm. Regulations have lapsed.

Mr. HOGGE: You never told us that before.

Mr. BONARLAW: Let me say quite plainly why it is that in our view this Bill must be part of the general law of the land. If the House of Commons were always sitting, it would be possible, in case of an emergency, to carry through such a Bill, and to make it permanent would not be necessary. We know a contingency might arise when the House of Commons was not sitting. As a matter of fact the railway strike I referred totook place when the House was not sitting, and if we had not had powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations similar to those we are asking for now, it would have been absolutely impossible for the Government to deal with: the situation at the time it was necessary to deal with it. I say again that for this reason it really is essential for any Government that, in the event of a sudden emergency of this kind, power should be in the hands of the Executive to deal with an emergency which might threaten the life of the whole nation.
The other criticism is that this Bill is provocative. I cannot agree with that. We are very anxious to do nothing on our part which would render a settlement of this unhappy controversy more difficult, and we feel that as strongly as any hon. Member of this House. But let us consider the position, and look at it from the point of view of the miners alone. It is quite true that negotiations have been reopened, but they have not reached a stage when it is possible for us to say anything whatever about them. I hope most fervently that they will be favourable, but I think, judging by experience in past negotiations, that it is very likely, even though they do end favourably, before the end is reached we shall be up against some particular point on which neither side is willing to yield. Supposing
it happens two or three days hence, and we then introduce this Bill, it would be described as much more provocative than it is to-day, and if it be necessary surely the best time to put it forward is when the controversy is not so acute, and it cannot be regarded in itself as provocative.
I have said that we are grateful to the miners for the manner in which the strike has been carried on up to the present. I certainly do not want to say a word against the railwaymen, with whom I have taken part in many negotiations. But the House knows that only last week they decided on a sympathetic strike. It would have been a lightning strike, and, as I gathered from the speech of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas), they did so against the advice of their own leader. I do not think that would happen again. A Government, however, cannot take risks in a case where, as I have said—and the House must bear it in mind that this is the essence of the whole thing—the very life of the community is at stake. In such a case it really is necessary to provide us with the powers which are essential to deal with such a situation should it arise.
I would like to say one word more, and it is all I propose to say in connection with the introduction of this Bill. It has been said that the action of introducing it is provocative. It is not provocative; it is not a threat. It is not provocative to let those who are concerned in the country know precisely what the action of the Government must be. Just consider what is the situation. Suppose a great wide-spread emergency of this kind arise, and suppose to make it worse that action is taken, as it would have been by the railwaymen, not to forward their own interests, but out of purely sympathetic motives: suppose the issue is a clear one, as to where the power in this country rests, for that is what the issue would be—it is quite obvious if you have an issue of this kind, when not the Government, which can be changed at a moment's notice, but the House of Commons, in approval of the action of the Government, has taken a particular line, if that line is to be upset by direct action by anybody, however important, then power in this country is changed. That is the view taken by the Government. Their action is really not provocative. It is an endeavour to let everyone understand what
is the real position, and in appealing to the House of Commons to give us this Bill I make that appeal, not on behalf of this Government—for I sincerely believe it would be just as necessary to make it if a Labour Government were sitting on these Benches—I make it, not on behalf of the Government, but because, in my belief, it is necessary, if we are to retain the whole constitutional system upon which the government of this country is founded.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I think it is a matter for profound regret that the Government has introduced a measure of this character at the present moment. We have just learned from the newspapers and other sources that the negotiations between the miners' executive and the Government have been resumed. We have also heard from some sources that those negotiations seem to have taken a rather hopeful turn. For the Government, at such a stage as that, to introduce a measure of this character is, I think, a matter to be deeply deplored by all sections of the people of this country. For the past week we have had 1,200,000 mine workers on strike, and, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), there are possibly nearly as many, at any rate there are a considerable number of other workers, involved by the strike engaged in by the miners. Notwithstanding that this huge body has been idle for a week, little or no disturbance of any kind has taken place—none such as would justify the introduction of a measure of this character. I want to say to the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government present that in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who are associated with me on these Benches, action of this kind is calculated to arouse the suspicions of the working classes. Already too much of that sort of thing has taken place in connection with this crisis in the mining industry.
It may be remembered that at the beginning of the dispute the Prime Minister warned the miners that in the event of a strike arising with regard to the dual claim they then put forward, the Government would use all the forces of the State. I think that that was an unfortunate
expression. Already it has had certain results. It is an expression which I can assure the right hon. Gentleman has been in the minds of the workers ever since it was uttered. People in his position or in any position of responsibility during the course of a crisis of this kind cannot be too careful of the words they use. It was a threat which should not have been used by the Prime Minister in connection with negotiations which were proceeding at the time. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must very quickly have changed his opinion of the miners. We have heard him several times in this House pay glowing tributes to them, and outside this House he has been in the habit of paying even more glowing tributes to the miners as a class. I have before me at the moment a quotation from one of his numerous speeches in which he says:
I have seen the miner in many spheres and capacities. I have seen him as a worker, and there is none better.
If that is his testimony regarding the miner, surely he is a man against whom there is little need to use all the resources of the State. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I have seen him as a politician, there is none sounder; I have seen him as a singer, there is none sweeter; I have seen him as a footballer, and he is terrible to behold; I have seen him as a soldier, there is none better in Europe. In all his capacities he is always in deadly earnest, always conscientious, always loyal, a steadfast friend, a dangerous foe.
That is the opinion of the Prime Minister—at least it was.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I stand by it now.

Mr. ADAMSON: The right hon. Gentleman says he stands by that statement now. I tell him that if that is his opinion of the miners, there was no need for threatening, when they were making what they believed to be a just demand so far as wages were concerned, that all the resources of the State would be used against them.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my right hon. Friend is wrong. Perhaps he has not quoted the sentence which I used. I did say that if it was intended by direct action to take the government out of the hands of the constitutional authorities of this country, we should have to meet it with all the. resources of the State; and that is true.

Mr. ADAMSON: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that his statement was used in connection with the case put forward by the miners for an advance of wages, and I do not think that there is any necessity for introducing legislation of the character we are discussing this afternoon, in view of the high opinion of the men, which is not only held by the Prime Minister, but acquiesced in by the whole of" his colleagues. The Lord Privy Seal, in the few words in which he introduced the Bill this afternoon, told us that it was not intended to use this legislation in ordinary disputes as to wages and working conditions, but only in the event of a dispute that would involve the national life. That was what I understood him to say. But it will be impossible for this or any other Government to distinguish in that way between trade disputes that may occur in the future, and for this reason. You have industries in this country which may make claims for wages and be refused, just as the miners have been refused on the present occasion, and, although they may be unassisted by other workpeople in the country going on strike, they are so numerous and so important to the national life that their striking would involve the food supply of the nation. Take the miners, for example. If they were to be on strike for, say, 10, 12, or 17 weeks, as they have been before, it certainly would involve the very life-blood of the nation. Not only would the food supplies be threatened, but every other phase of national life would be threatened. The dispute the miners are now engaged in is a wages dispute. It is impossible for this Government, or for any other Government, to discriminate in the way which the Lord Privy Seal tried to make us believe the Government would discriminate in the future.
I do not think panic legislation of this kind can be good legislation. Panic legislation is always dangerous legislation, and the Government would be well advised, even at this stage, to withdraw the Bill, or, at any rate, to hold it over until they have ascertained whether a settlement with the Miners' Executive is possible. I think that the action of the Miners' Executive, and, if I may say so, the action of the Railwaymen's Executive,
are, indeed, lessons in diplomacy and tactics to the Government itself. Notwithstanding the importance of the matter in which the Miners' Executive and, later on, the Railwaymen's Executive with them, have been engaged, they have shown an amount of restraint which should earn the commendation of, and should also provide an example for, the Government. I think that, even now, the Government should agree to suspend the Second Reading of this Bill. I can assure them that it will do much to arouse the suspicion of the workmen of this country, and the situation is grave enough and serious enough without that. It devolves upon every one of us in our respective spheres to do all that we can to allay suspicion and to remove danger. If this be danger, as I profoundly believe it to be, it is the duty of the Government to remove it. That can be done by suspending the discussion of the Second Reading and leaving it over until the negotiations are completed. If the negotiations end successfully in the course of the present week, as I sincerely hope they will, then this Bill ought to be withdrawn altogether. I can assure the Leader of the House that, if he intends to get this class of legislation in a permanent form, as appears to me to be the case in this Bill, then the members of the party with which I am associated on these benches have no alternative but to fight it every inch of the way. We cannot put into the hands of this Government or any other Government, whether it be of the type of the present one or a Labour Government, permanent legislation of this kind. I would again strongly impress upon them the necessity for suspending the consideration of the Second Reading of this Bill. In the event of their still refusing, I now move the rejection of the Bill.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: As the Leader of the House informed us, a few moments ago, that the bringing in of this Bill was not intended to be, and was not, in any sense a provocative step, I think that we independent Members of the House ought to realise that, in anything we may say upon the subject, we should be very careful to avoid anything which could be either provocative or offensive to those who take a different view from ourselves. I am not going to say anything upon the point, with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adamson) concluded
his speech, as to the desirability of the present moment as the selected time for bringing in this Bill. I am content to leave that to the Government, in consultation, if necessary, with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. I am not on the question of time; but I am convinced, if only by the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that, upon the general consideration of the conditions obtaining to-day, when a suitable time is chosen, it is very necessary, not only for this Government, but for any Government, to have some such powers as this Bill aims at placing at the disposal of the Executive. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said a good deal about threats which he attributed to the Prime Minister. I do not say it in any offensive spirit whatever, but it appears to me the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that they may use on these occasions as much of the language of menace as they like, but that anything in the nature of the mildest possible warning that counter steps will be taken against the action that they support is an unjustifiable threat.
In the Debate in which we were engaged the other day, I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) gave what I thought was a perfectly legitimate warning that, in certain eventualities, destruction might be wrought in the mines by neglect, and the Prime Minister afterwards pointed out that that would mean their destruction for ever. That language, which, as I think, was quite a legitimate warning, would, if it had been used by the Government, have been denounced from the Front Bench opposite as a menace or a threat. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), in the same Debate, quite legitimately, as I thought, pointed out that, unless a settlement were arrived at with the miners, it might be quite possible that there would be a very serious complication by his own union taking part. I did not notice that anybody on this side of the House objected to that on the ground that it was a threat, but it certainly was quite as much a threat as was the language of the Prime Minister on some former occasion when he pointed out that, if there were action of this sort, which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite put it, threatened the very life of the country, it would, of
course, be the duty of the Government, representing the country as a whole, to take any legitimate steps that were within their powers in order to protect the majority of the people of the country against the evils of starvation or deprivation of the necessities of life. I should be very glad if some hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be perfectly candid with the House as to their attitude in this matter. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for example, agree with a very distinguished trade union leader who has told us that it would be an outrageous thing to use municipal buildings for the purpose of distributing food? Do they really agree with that, and, if so, are we to understand that their attitude is that, unless one side in a trade dispute prevails, the whole country is to be starved? One right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I am very glad to see him do it. I want really to know, because sometimes their actions and their words, unless they are very much misunderstood on this side of the House, appear to us to be open to no other interpretation. Do they desire that, if the side in this dispute which they advocate—and I am expressing no opinion whatever as to its merits—do they desire that, if it does not prevail, the community at large shall be starved and be deprived of the necessities of life to such an extent that the Government shall not be allowed to distribute food at all? Unless they mean that, I cannot understand the attitude of any leader who says that, if the necessary distribution of food is to take place, it will be a positive iniquity and a threat and a menace to the working classes of the country if municipal buildings are to be used for the purpose.

Mr. SEXTON: Who said that?

Mr. McNEILL: It has been put forward in the most public way by one of the most prominent Labour leaders within the last few days. I want to put the domestic point of view of an ordinary Member of Parliament with none of the responsibilities of Government, but, of course, with a certain amount of responsibility to his own constituents. My right hon. Friend has said that it is not a question, or, at any rate, not exclusively a question, of putting down disturbances. Let us take the case of my own constituency, in regard to which I, naturally, feel a certain
responsibility. Supposing that, in the course of some weeks, my constituents, owing to lack of communications and lack of production, either of coal or of any other commodity, find themselves with a diminishing supply; that every household is more or less pinched, and that actual starvation or destitution is being brought to their doors. They naturally turn to their Member and say: "Well, but the Government ought to take some steps. We are told that there are certain supplies of coal, or sugar, or wheat, or whatever it is, in London—that there are some in Bristol. Why are we not getting any in this constituency, because we happen to be in an isolated part of the country? Why do not the Government send it down? "Am I to reply to a question of that sort: "Well, the Government are anxious to deal as fairly as possible with the supplies as between man and man, and to prevent the rich from obtaining the whole of this diminishing quantity,. but the Labour party will not allow it "? The Labour party step in, when the Government ask for these powers, and say," No, we will not let you do anything—even distribute food. We will not allow you power to commandeer a motor car or a lorry." Why? Because the Government must not be allowed to do anything to alleviate in the smallest degree the distress that may be occasioned, and because one side of the dispute is to prevail, no matter what consequences accrue to the majority of the nation. Looking to the responsibility of that sort which, as it appears to me will be thrown upon every one of us who represents a constituency in this House on such an occasion, and without expresing the smallest opinion—I do not feel competent to do so—upon the merits of the great dispute which is now so unhappily dividing us, I do feel bound, seeing that the consequences may be so very serious to the men and women, and especially the poorest men and women, whom I represent, to give my support to the Government in asking for these powers, which I think they ought to have at their disposal.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. SEXTON: Like my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson), I wish to express my regret that, at a moment like the present, any such legislation as this should be introduced. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McNeill) asked us to
be frank. I am going to accept his advice and be frank and candid. I quite agree that, under the circumstances mentioned by the Leader of the House, if such circumstances ever arise, the first object of the Government ought to be to feed the people, and they should leave no stone unturned to carry out such a commendable and humane object. So far, I quite agree with the Leader of the House. I also agree that the Government of the country should, so far as the safety of the people is concerned, take full constitutional action to that end. I may not, perhaps, be in accord altogether with some of the members of my own party, but I do say that, while we live in a constitutional country, we should be expected and compelled to act constitutionally, and to obey the laws as they exist, no matter how much we may disagree wih them. I hope I shall never depart from that principle. May I point out to the Leader of the House, however, that, so far as I can see, all the powers that he asks for he has already in case of emergency. If the right hon Gentleman is so enamoured now of the necessity of commandeering all the necessaries of life, I can only regret that he did not put that principle into operation during the War when the profiteers were depriving people of the necessities of life. If it is good now it was good then. This death-bed repentance comes to me with a very suspicious look upon it. Is it intended to do more than the right hon. Gentleman suggests?
May I point out one or two passages in the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reassure us as to what these mean. It says:
Regulations may confer or impose on a Secretary of State or other Government Department or any other persons in His Majesty's Service or acting on His Majesty's behalf such powers and duties as His Majesty may deem necessary for the preservation of the peace, for securing and regulating the supply and distribution of food, etc… The Regulations may provide for the trial by courts of summary jurisdiction of persons guilty of offences against the "Regulations.
First of all, I am curious to know what shape those Regulations are going to take. As it reads at present any person guilty of offences against the Regulations is liable to trial, liable to imprisonment, and liable to fine. Those Regulations may be
easily construed when plainly put down and when we know what they are, but for the distribution of any commodity necessary for life, such as water, fuel and light, this would mean, as the Bill stands, that if there was a strike, or threatened strike, of municipal servants in a municipal water works they would be liable to be tried or imprisoned or fined. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I read the words:
The Regulations may provide for the trial by courts of summary jurisdiction of persons guilty of offences against the Regulations.
The Regulations are to provide fuel, water and food. If a strike occurs amongst the employés of a municipal water works it is an offence against the Regulations as to distributing fuel or water. If that" is so, and to all appearances that is what is meant by the Bill, every strike or threatened strike would be an illegal act and against the Regulations.
I am not fond of strikes. Under ordinary circumstances the paid agitator, as one is called sometimes, has a pretty easy time of it. But when a strike occurs, you talk about an eight-hour day, but if there were 30, 40, or 50 hours in a day he would have to work every one of them, and he would get no overtime neither. So I am not fond of strikes. I have said, and I say it again, that in the case of a big upheaval, in the case of possible starvation some necessary machinery for the distribution of commodities ought not to be wanting. An hon. Member asked us to be perfectly candid. He asked us to make a statement as to what we thought of the public expressions of what he is pleased to call responsible leaders of the trade union movement. I assume he referred to a statement made the other day by a gentleman, with whom I am associated in the transport trade, about condemning the use of muncipal buildings in the case mentioned by the Leader of the House and by himself. I am not one of those who would subscribe to any such policy at any time and under any circumstances. But why was not the hon. Member fair? Why does he not complete the statement made by the person he referred to? In that speech he also said that the trade unions of the country, and the transport workers particularly, were prepared to co-operate heartily in the distribution of food if such a thing as that ever
happened, and to see that nothing was left undone so that the food would reach the people. Why was not that statement added to what he had said already? The objection taken, and it is a very natural objection, too, was that municipal buildings should be used for the purpose of housing strike-breakers—not members of unions at all, but volunteers from what are known as the middle classes. I want to warn the House, and the Leader of the House, that you can go a bit too far on this alleged middle-class opposition to organised labour.
No one wants to get up class hatred or class distinctions. I do not, and I do not agree with those who do. I am going to be frank now—franker than the hon. Member asked me. I thoroughly and vigorously disagree with the evil spirit that is going about to-day talking about bloody revolution. Men like that are neither friends to the country nor to organised labour. In fact they are deadly enemies. But how is this Bill going to pass? If it helps in the direction of stopping this kind of thing I will welcome it. I consider that if Labour is at some time to occupy the Treasury Bench, whenever it comes, sooner or later, the same responsibility may be cast upon them. I believe the best investment Labour can make is to study and propagate constitutional action as opposed to direct action. We may have to wait a few years, but to my mind it is much cheaper and better to wait for that than to hasten ruin, chaos, and confusion. My only fear is that the Bill will be used, not for the purpose which was laid down in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but will be used, improperly, for the purpose of preventing legitimate trade unionism organisation. I should not have taken the slightest objection to the machinery proposed by the Leader of the House, but one or two sentences occurred in his speech which gave me pause. One was that whatever legislation was proposed it would not be hurried. Why has it been hurried now? I assume, not only the Second Beading, but the Third Reading of this Bill is to be rushed through if possible in one sitting of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It may be delayed a day.
The right hon. Gentleman says if Parliament is not sitting, no action can be taken without summoning Parliament, and the example he gave us was the railway
strike. But may I remind him that Parliament was not sitting at the time and he took the powers he is asking for now without asking Parliament to meet at all. [Interruption.] That is what I say. The powers existed. I do not speak with any vindictiveness towards the present Parliament. I am merely stating a matter of history. Is there any doubt what the present Parliament would do in a case of that description? If I may use an Ibsenite phrase, is there any doubt what the present Government would do with its damned compact majority behind it? There is no doubt in my mind, and I do not think there is much doubt in the minds of the Government itself. If the question ever came up it would be merely a matter of calling Parliament together as a matter of form and the thing would go through. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if it is clearly laid down that the powers are going to be confined purely to feeding the people and are not to be used to imprison men who are using the only weapon they know how to use, I want to see the time come when legislation of such a character will be framed and passed by this House which will rid us of most of these troubles. Ever since the War has ended I have deplored, and will continue to deplore, the lost opportunities of this country to recover its world trade. But the fault does not lie on one side. The responsibility must be shared equally. We are not living in the glorious land we were promised after the War was over. Only last week evidence of the most awful and startling character came before me with respect to the inland water traffic of the country against which a brute beast would rebel and which this Bill may affect when it comes into operation. In the inland water transport of this country to-day families are reared from infancy to manhood and womenhood inside the narrow confines of canal boats, in narrow fly boats where, to use a figurative expression, there is not room to whip a cat. The women reared in these places have to lie on their backs and push the canal boats through dark fearsome tunnels by means of their feet. If they struck, as they ought to do, their action might be construed as an offence under this Bill because, heaven save the mark, it might be interfering with the distribution of fuel or food. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to force us into a position like that? In so far as this Bill
stands at present it appears to me that the danger of these things is liable to happen. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as I am concerned, and I speak for many of my colleagues, if a contingency such as he described occurred, and there was danger of starvation, the most ardent trade unionists would decry any interference with the distribution of food. When it is said that volunteers are coming forward in their thousands, and when appeals are made to the so-called middle classes or the upper classes to come in and to do the work that the men in the trade unions themselves are prepared to do and have offered to do, the right hon. Gentleman is subscribing to the very policy which he has so vigorously denounced both in and outside of this House. He is raising that class distinction which any sensible man either a labour man or otherwise wishes to avoid. I am not satisfied with the Bill. So far as I can read the provisions they do not carry out the object or the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman, and I sincerely trust that he will accept the advice of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) at a moment like this, when everything hangs upon a peaceful solution of our present difficulty, and withdraw the Bill and introduce it later, if necessary, when the present friction does not exist.

Mr. ASQUITH: I am not surprised to hear from my right hon. Friend that it is not the intention of the Government to proceed further than the Second Reading stage of the Bill during the present sitting. My object in rising now is to make the strongest appeal I possibly can to the Government, and I make it I believe in consonance with a sentiment which is widely prevalent in many different quarters of the House, not to proceed at this moment with the Second Reading. In days gone by I have been concerned, perhaps more than almost anybody sitting upon those benches, with great industrial disputes. As head of the Government I have been through a railway strike and a still more severe and desolating experience, the coal strike of 1932, which lasted for the best part of six weeks. I am glad to say that on both these occasions we were able, ultimately, not without difficulty and not without friction, indeed with a certain display of legitimate and not unnatural temper, both
on the one side and on the other, but without any serious disorder or any actual privation so far as the great bulk of the community was concerned in regard to the necessaries of life, to arrive at a settlement. Do not let it be supposed when I recall these experiences that I think that the Executive of to-day is adequately provided with the machinery and the resources which, in emergencies which we are obliged to contemplate as possible, we might be called upon to use in the interests of the community. I do not think they are, and I would welcome the opportunity, and I think all other Members would welcome it, not least my hon. and right hon. Friends representing the Labour party, for a dispassionate, impartial deliberate consideration of the question whether it is possible, and if so by what legislative means, to give the Executive of the Government of the day, to whatever party it might belong, adequate equipment for safeguarding, in the event of serious widespread industrial disputes, what I might call the primordial and fundamental interests of society as a whole. I do not think anybody in the Labour party would differ from me in that statement.
The community ought to be protected. I do not care from what quarter the menace proceeds, whether from the employers or the employed, or from any other quarter. The community ought to be protected through its constitutional agency, the authority of the Government of the day, against privation and against avoidable suffering and loss. While I should be very glad to consider, and I believe all parties in the House would be glad to consider, any carefully devised legislation for that purpose, and aiming at that end, I cannot exaggerate the strength of my conviction that to attempt legislation of that kind in the atmosphere which at this moment surrounds us is, I will not say provocative, I do not want to use that word, but is calculated to prejudice the object which we all ought to have in view. It is not as if the Executive of the Government of the day do not possess powers ample and adequate to meet any risk with which we are at present threatened. The experience of the railway strike of last year was sufficient to show that the Government did possess those powers and they were exercised, if I may say so. with
discretion and to the advantage of the community. True, they are powers which were conferred upon the Government under emergency legislation in the time of war and which were intended to come to an end when the War came to an end, and peace was re-established in the world. I entirely agree that it would be an extremely unsatisfactory thing if when peace is brought about and those powers came to an end that the Government of the day should be left, as it were derelict, naked, stripped of adequate capacity to deal with emergencies of this kind. However, for the moment they possess the powers which I have mentioned, and I allude to that to show that there is no immediate urgency for carrying new legislation of this kind.
The Government have in their possession all the powers that are needed for any risks or dangers which at present confront us. That being the case, surely the elementary dictates of political prudence, not to say statesmanship, indicate that it would be better, for the time being, to rely upon those powers, and not at a most inopportune time, to pass permanent legislation of the kind contemplated by this Bill. It is not a matter of urgency at all. There is no emergency which calls at this moment for legislative action. On the other hand, if ever there was a serious question which requires for its elucidation, and still further for its settlement by legislation, calm and dispassionate action, from which, for the time being, the element of acute dispute and controversy are banished—if ever there was in the whole range of possible political legislation a topic to which that description applies—surely this is the one. Take this Bill. I am not going to enter upon anything like a critical analysis of it, but I would indicate two or three points to show how controversial it is, and how full of difficult problems, without imputing any insidious intention to make unnecessary inroads upon the rights and privileges either of trade unions or any other form of industrial activity or of the common law itself. Take the first Clause:
If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened "—
Threatened. That in itself is a phrase of very dangerous ambuiguity—
by any persons or body of persons …interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light or other necessities "—
There again, that raises a legal canon which is very familiar to every learned Gentleman opposite, more particularly the Attorney-General, the canon of ejusdem generis. One would like to know to what particular class of commodities or services those words apply. There may lurk there, as there does lurk so often in general terms, the possibilities of great danger and misunderstanding
… to deprive the community, or a substantial portion of the community "—
There again we have a very elastic and very risky phrase. What is "substantial"?

Mr. W. THORNE: Ask them another.

Mr. ASQUITH: What is "substantial"? [HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Thorne!"] A few more interjections will illustrate the enormous range and variety of the use of the word "substantial." Then we come to the last words: "of the essentials of life."
What are the essentials of life? That is a phrase that occurs again in a later Clause of the Bill. I could mention, and my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary can imagine from their own experience in the course of the law, endless controversy as to the meaning of these terms.
These are not Committee points. They are points of substance and reality. Come now to the second Clause, first Subsection. This gives power to make regulations for securing the essentials of life, whatever they are, for the community, and those regulations may confer or impose upon a Government Department such powers and duties as His Majesty may deem it necessary—what for?—for the preservation of the peace. That really includes the whole domain of social order. Regulations in compliance with those words would fall within that category which have really nothing whatever to do with light, fuel or even the essentials of life. The preservation of peace is a separate category. The next Sub-section is very important from a constitutional point of view:
Any regulation so made shall be laid
before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and "—
this looks like a great concession to the authority of Parliament, but what does it really amount to?
shall not continue in force after the expiration of fourteen days from the time when they are so laid unless a resolution is passed by both Houses providing for the continuance thereof.
That is a very proper concession, but it does not go nearly far enough, because it gives a free run of nearly fourteen days for these regulations during which they will have the validity of an Act and everything done under them will be valid and effectual. When you are dealing with an emergency situation fourteen days is usually sufficient, or more than sufficient, and it ought to be, if the administration is reasonably competent and efficient, to put into operation, to get upon their legs all the regulations which the ingenuity and skill of Government Departments can devise. Therefore, to say that Parliament has a power of veto after they have had a run of fourteen days is to pay lip homage to Parliament and not to give it any really effective control.

Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend misunderstands the intention, and I think the words. As I understand, Parliament on any one of the days after the Regulations are made could turn out the Government and put an end to the Regulations.

Mr. ASQUITH: It may be that perhaps the draftsmanship has not been as lucid as it usually is, otherwise I do not understand the use of the words, "after the expiration of fourteen days." I want to impress on my right hon. Friend that I am not dealing with this from the Committee point of view. I am only pointing out the extraordinary difficulty and complexity of legislation of this kind. At every turn you are confronted, even with the best draftsmanship in the world, and, further, if you like, with the most innocent intentions in the world, with problems both in intention and expression which require for their proper settlement, not only a calm atmosphere but prolonged and careful Parliamentary discussion. Is it reasonable to demand from the House of Commons, in the situation in which we now stand, I will not say in one day, because the Government have conceded us
another, but that in a couple of days we should put in a permanent shape on the Statute Book—because this is permanent legislation—I have no objection to it for that reason; I quite agree that It should not be left in a temporary position under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations—provisions which, disguise them how we may, do give to the Executive of the day very wide powers of interference, not only with the Common Law, but with the ordinary rights and privileges of the British subject? I come back to the point with which. I started. So far as the emergency is concerned, the Government are amply equipped for dealing with it. So far as the future is concerned, I quite agree, and I am sure that my hon. Friends here would agree, though I have no authority to speak for them, that it is desirable that the powers of the Executive should clearly be defined by legislative action, whatever those powers may be, but is it unreasonable—and I do not urge this on behalf of any particular section, but on behalf of a very large body of opinion both inside and outside this House—that they should suspend the further discussion to a more convenient season—I do not ask them to withdraw it—until these menacing clouds which have been darkening the sky for the last few weeks, and which we hope are now going to be dispelled, have been, as we all trust and believe they will now be, finally dispersed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have felt a real anxiety with regard to this Bill, not because some such Bill as this is not-needed. I am convinced by the speech of my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, that it is desirable that the Government should have power given them to deal with difficulties such as that which might arise at present or in the future or which arose last year. My anxiety is of an entirely different character. It is an anxiety as to any alteration in the constitutional position of the House of Commons. I am not arguing that powers should not be given, for the Leader of the House has convinced me that powers should be given to the Government. But this Bill in effect rivets for all time the provisions of these Defence of the Realm Act Regulations on the country, and does it without any interference by Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition told us that the Regulations made by the Government might
last for fourteen days. Under the provisions of this Bill, if it is passed and Parliament is not sitting, the Government may declare that an emergency has arisen, and then Parliament need not be summoned for fourteen days, during the whole of which time the fresh powers under this Bill and any Regulations made under them, could be put into operation, and then when Parliament meets there is a further fourteen days during which the Regulations apply until a Resolution is passed by the House to the contrary. So it is clear the Government may make any Regulations they like within the four corners of this Bill. Heaven knows the Bill is wide enough, and those Regulations may enure whatever Government is in power for twenty-seven days at least if Parliament is not sitting.
I am not at all sure as a Member of the House of Commons that it is wise to give any Government such enormous powers as those uncontrolled by the action of Parliament. This Bill deals with the preservation of peace, with questions of food, light, transport, in fact everything which conduces to the well-being of the people of this country. The Government can make any Regulations. They may commandeer under these Regulations any man's property—it may be right or wrong—food or coal, and the Government have the power to do that without the intervention of the House of Commons. I am not at all sure that under the Bill as it is now drawn they cannot go further and make Regulations—I believe they can—declaring enforced labour on any one of us in regard to the distribution of coal, transport, or what not. They are in effect taking such vast powers under this Bill that I want to warn the House that they should, at least in the Committee Stage, insist on very serious alterations in the provisions of the Bill. I am not opposed to the principle of certain powers being given. I think that they must be given in regard to certain possibilities. I do not want to say a word that might exacerbate in any degree the tension existing at present between the miners and the Government. I am assured that hon. Members above the Gangway do not look on me as one of their friends, and personally I hold very strong views with regard to the miners' dispute; but because I did not want to say anything which might in any way go against the possibility of negotiations for peace, I
abstained from speaking and did not attempt to catch the Speaker's eye in the Debate which took place a few days ago. But we must have adequate amendments if we are to give the Government the possibility of exercising such enormous-powers as these, powers which I believe have never been given by any Parliamentary Chamber in the history of the world. The Leader of the House said that these powers were exercised by and granted to other Governments, but I really do not think that he can produce-any Acts of any Parliament according such extreme powers to any Government without the assent of Parliament for the time being.
I would ask the Home Secretary, who is in charge, whether he would not consent to some modifications in this Bill. First, that Parliament should meet, not within fourteen days, but should be called together the moment this necessity arises. After all, we in this House are supposed to control the Executive of this country. That is our real object in being here. Some people think that our object is simply to file through division lobbies and vote as the Whips tell us. I do not think that that is the view of our constituents or the real reason why the House of Commons was instituted. The House of Commons grew up in order to control possible tyrannical action of the Executive of the day, and I hope that the Government will assent to an Amendment in the Committee Stage that the moment that Regulations under this Act are made by any Government and Parliament is not sitting, Parliament shall be summoned at once. It could be summoned within three days. It certainly could be done within seven, and I desire, not that the Regulations should last for fourteen days unless they are ratified by the House of Commons, but that Parliament should be summoned by express summons to have the Regulations placed before them and to ask their assent to them. I believe that this House, or any House, would, when an emergency had arisen, give those powers to the Government. My objection is to giving powers which can be exercised without Parliamentary sanction, and I ask the House as guardian of the rights of the House and of the people of this country to say that, while we are prepared to give powers to the Government, the Government must summon us if we are not sitting and put the proposed Regulations
before us and ask us whether or not we are prepared to assent; in other words, that it shall be ourselves and not the Minister of the day who will decide whether such emergency has arisen or not. I believe that if the emergency arises and the Government come to us and say, an emergency has arisen, no House of Commons would refuse to grant the power, but I object to giving them a blank cheque which they can use for twenty-seven days without the assent of the House of Commons.

Mr. CLYNES: It would ill become a Member of this House to say anything complimentary about the House of Commons, but I go the length of saying very sincerely that I think the House of Commons has done well, since it re-assembled a few days ago, in its discussions on these unhappy industrial troubles, and the contributions from all sides of the House, expressing every degree and phase of opinion, have tended to create an opinion in the country which I hope is helping towards a settlement of the present trouble. What has been said from this side of the House has been so described from that, and what has been said from that side, we say sincerely, appears to us to have been designed towards bringing together those great and powerful parties to a dispute which exposes the interests and the well-being of the country to such real peril. We are therefore anxious to maintain the reputation of the House of Commons. I want to assure the Government that our hostility to this Bill is directed mainly to the end of playing a helpful part in the negotiations which are still proceeding, and which we hope will finally reach a settlement. We understand—we have good reason to believe—that we are nearer a settlement now than we have been during recent days. Public opinion and, I think, the opinion of the Press are all being focussed on the task of producing that temper and feeling among the industrial population, and particularly amongst the miners, which must be a helpful contribution to a satisfactory settlement. Accordingly, I am driven to the conclusion that this is the most inopportune and the most unsuitable moment that could be chosen for bringing forward legislation of this kind. It may be. said that it is not only inopportune, but that this move is a move which must make for mischief between the parties
who are shouldering the responsibility for reaching a settlement.
I do not believe that this is an attack upon trade unionism. I cannot think that a Government, with all the limitations which we believe the existing Government has, could seriously think of framing legislation designed to undermine the power and authority of the trade union movement of this country. If that authority and that power are undermined it will be due, not to the action of the Government; it will be due to the outside follies of the trade union movement itself. Why do I think that this legislation is not so intended? The strength of the miner is not in what he does. His strength is particularly exhibited when he is doing nothing at all. The Government could pass 20 Acts of Parliament, but it could not get a million people to go down into the pits and handle coal in place of the men who are coal producers, and the miners' strength lies in the fact that you cannot get men to fill their places. That is true in a very large measure of the men who run the trains, of the men who carry on generally the transport services of our country. We well know that in some sort of manner, temporary and very greatly limited services can be improvised by those who must to same degree carry on the transport service, if for no other purpose than that of feeding the community, and even of feeding their strikers; but by no stretch of imagination can the country be made to believe that by Act of Parliament you can smash trade unionism in the sense of getting people to fill the places of those millions of men, or in the sense of destroying the moral of those who compose the trade union movement.
Let me reinforce the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and especially to urge that this of all moments is the wrong moment for this particular purpose. That has already been said, but there is one thing in relation to it which has not been said. The course of this miners' trouble, as is well known, produced a decision on the part of the railwaymen's executive. The merits of that decision I am not going to discuss. For the time being that decision has been reversed—I am not so sure about my qualification as to whether it is for the time—but at any rate the decision of the railwaymen's executive to
ask their men to cease work is not to take effect, for the reason that a great national special congress of the whole trade union movement is to be held in this city on Wednesday. Are we then to have the conference assemble in a mood of suspicion such as I am certain that the passing or forcing of a Bill like this through the House to-day and to-morrow would be absolutely certain to produce? If this Bill became law that conference on Wednesday would think more of this Bill, and talk more about it, and would probably be moved more by it than by any other consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"] I will try to explain why. Although this Bill may be perfect in its terms and expressions as a legal instrument for doing certain things, the Government in a matter like this wants advice, not merely upon points of law; it appears to me it wants advice on points of psychology; and in such a conference, that would consist to a great extent, no doubt, of men predisposed to a national strike and men who do believe that this is an attack on trade unionism, men whose beliefs will be further sustained and strengthened by the passage of this Bill, there would quickly develop the mood to regard this as a challenge from the Government, and it is human nature in these circumstances not to run away from challenges, but to accept them.
If for no other reason than that the Government ought to see that this is a most inopportune moment for pressing this measure upon the House. I know the Government might say that they must not be afraid; that they have a duty to do. Discretion is an attribute not unknown in some governments, and it is well at these moments of crisis and exceptional national temper to act discreetly as well as courageously. It would not be a discreet thing for the Government to provoke a national strike by passing a Bill of this kind at a time, when they might well have avoided it and enabled the trade union movement to take a more composed and reasonable view of matters, and to leave the negotiations which might then be proceeding as between the miners' representatives and the Government to take their course. We object to the Bill on its merits, though we would rather address our objections under that head at a time when we would have a fuller opportunity of dealing with them in detail, for under these conditions of rush it would be impossible for us to
address our views fully to the House and the country on many points of outstanding detail. An emergency, I conclude, is considered by the Government already to have arisen.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): No.

Mr. CLYNES: The Government consider that we are approaching a time, say, within a few days, when there may be need for legislation of this kind or else they would not be pressing such a Bill upon the House at the moment. It must be that they have a fear that such legislation as this is necessary now in order that it might be applied in one degree or another in the course of a very few days. That is ir the event of a railway stoppage. Who is to show us that the powers already possessed by the Government are not ample for the purposes which, in the main, are mentioned in this Bill in relation to the supply of food, water, light, fuel, and other necessities? In what respect docs the Government lack power to give effect to any Act? What action is there that the Government cannot take legally in regard to the supply and maintenance of any one of these essentials? Indeed, the Home Secretary is well aware that steps in relation to all these matters have already been taken by the Government, and I think properly taken by the Government. That is to say, public institutions, public schools, public bodies, individuals, Government offices, and estate offices have already been put into use by the Government for the purpose of inviting persons who might be willing in certain circumstances to assist the Government in the maintenance of supplies of food, light and so on.
6.0 P.M.
The Government rightly calls for emergency powers to deal with the great emergencies occasioned by these strikes, and I think that on this side of the House there would be agreement that, for very exceptional circumstances, exceptional facilities must be at the hand of the Government, and that provisions must be made in an exceptional way in order to meet the life needs of the nation. I do not regard steps of that kind as breaking a strike. The striker would not like to be compelled to live in a state of semi-starvation any more than the rest of the community. We grant, therefore, that food must be produced, must be imported, must be distributed,
must in all its sections and detail be supplied to the various shops. But what we say also is that no one of these steps need rest at all upon a Bill of this kind. In the main what does' the Bill do? It threatens bodies of men with the penalties of the law. It threatens to fine them up to £100, a sum so large that perhaps a few workmen would even enjoy the very idea of being called upon to pay such a sum. It threatens them with terms of imprisonment. The Home Secretary has had a long enough experience in every branch of the law, and in the particular office he now fills, to know that if you make threats when you are dealing with enormous numbers of men, not merely thousands, but hundreds of thousands, your threats are so many empty words. They are mischievous words. They have the effect of producing illegalities and of causing men to break the law because of the little respect they have for it on account of the way in which it has been forced through at a time when there is no need for it whatever. Your large bodies of men will not be deterred from any tendency to misdeeds by the term of three months' imprisonment or by fines of £100. Your gaols could not be enlarged or made big enough to accommodate the number of men who, in the view of some people in this country, would be committing illegalities in connection with any extension of the strike, if one unfortunately did occur. In so far as this Bill proposes permanent legislation, I doubt whether there is a single Member who would urge in this Debate that this is an appropriate moment to ask the House to pass legislation of a permanent character. It has been said that this Bill has been under the consideration of the Government for a considerable time. Let us grant that. The House is to sit in the ordinary way until some time approaching Christmas. Surely we may hope that between now and then there will be peace or intervals of peace and industrial composure in which there would be a very different frame of mind, not only in the country but in this House, to do justice to legislation intended to be of a permanent character dealing with industrial employment. So I urge that there is no need for this Bill in relation to any present tendency arising from existing strikes or
threatened strikes, and that in so far as it proposes a permanent change of the law, the present time is an entirely wrong time to pass legislation of this sort, and at this moment it will have a very harmful effect on existing disputes.
The Leader of the House in submitting the Bill used one argument, and from it I want to draw a certain conclusion. He told us that there was a certain Act of Parliament dating from 1875 which places limitations in regard to strikes upon men who produce gas and water. I personally have had some 20 years' experience in relation to that Act and I can say that the results are simply these. That Act requires the men to give a fortnight's notice if they intend to strike in regard to the supply of those needs. The men who are on strike now gave due notice. I am not justifying their strike, and I am only pointing out that they did conform fully to the requirements of the law, and they not only gave notice, but even extended it because of certain negotiations that were proceeding. But suppose they did not, or suppose that the railway-men giving no notice ceased work suddenly, are we to be told that there will be an attempt to put into practice the provisions of this law and call upon some 600,000 or 700,000 railway workers to go to prison for three months or even pay fines of £100. No such folly of that kind would be committed by the Government which would have this Act to administer. Gasworkers and those concerned in the supply of water have struck without giving notice, and in such large numbers as to make it impossible for the law to be carried out. Only a few months ago we had an experience of this kind. The gasworkers, without a moment's warning, struck work in Manchester and in several other Lancashire towns and in a few other places in the Midlands, and yet no proceedings were taken against those men because they committed an illegality, never thinking there were illegalities, in such large numbers as to make it wholly impossible to apply the law to them. Therefore I hope that the Act of 1875 will not be taken as a guide for the conduct of hon. Members in giving their vote on this particular Measure.
Hon. Members who take part in these Debates, sometimes quite justly and quite accurately, taunt us who sit on this side of
the House with speaking for a following which sometimes we cannot control. There is much more in that than meets the eye. The real way to make weaker and weaker the authority of the moderate Labour man is to play more and more into the hands of the extremists by giving him the arguments and excuses that he desires in the country for showing the powerlessness of those of us who are on this side, and with taunting us that these appeals that we make fall on deaf ears in this House Let the Government not mistake me and think that we feel that we have the right whenever we ask for anything to get it. I do not mean that; but here is something we could get and something that would, so to speak, do an enormous amount of service from the point of view of the moderate Labour man, and which the Government could give without the slightest fraction of loss or sacrifice of any kind whatever. Pass this Bill and on Wednesday at the great special conference we shall be taunted with the failure of our efforts and with the impotency of Parliamentary methods, and we shall be told that it is no use appealing to the House of Commons even, as they will say, for such slender concessions as we sometimes beg the Government to concede. I therefore say on the ground of discretion, if not on the wider grounds of wisdom and generosity, this is a most inopportune moment to press either temporary or permanent legislation of this kind, and I trust our appeal will not fall entirely on deaf ears.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot help expressing my great regret that urgent calls on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, and I have no doubt they are urgent, have prevented them from hearing the speech which has just been delivered. I am sure hon. Members who heard it, whether they agree with his conclusions or not, will agree with me in saying that the statement of the case could not have been put better, more moderately, or more persuasively. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) will forgive me if I say that I do not think he quite apprehended rightly the scope of this Bill. He regarded it as a Bill the object of which was to put into prison strikers by the thousand. I shall be very much surprised to hear from the Home Secretary that the Government thought or desired to take any such action as that
under the provisions of the Bill. I did not understand the Lord Privy Seal to make that case for the Bill at all. His case was that, suppose there is a sudden threatened cessation of the supply of the necessaries of life, or of the means of transportation, which is practically a necessary of life under modern conditions, then the Government should have power to take measures to supply the deficiency that was thus caused, and that they should be allowed to commandeer this lorry or take possession of a building or whatever it might be. I sometimes have my doubts about the wisdom of the present Government, but I do not think they are quite so mad as to endeavour to stop a strike by putting the strikers into prison. That is a perfectly insane idea which nobody in this House would dream of entertaining. I do think that the Bill goes a great deal further than the Lord Privy Seal represents it. I daresay it is necessary as a matter of drafting, but undoubtedly it does take very, very wide powers. My right hon. Friend said it is only to be put into force when certain conditions exist. That is not quite accurate. The Bill says when it appears to His Majesty, and that is when it appears to the Government, under our Constitution, that certain conditions exist. That is a very different thing, and if it is left entirely to the Government to say that an emergency has arisen, it is for them to put the provisions into force. In the same way, I think the Lord Privy Seal under-rated the powers given by the second Clause. Under that Clause, assuming that the emergency exists, the Government are entitled to issue Regulations which, as my hon. Friend (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) pointed out, gave them almost despotic power over a very vast field. I agree that all this power is very materially limited by the fact that the Regulations can only remain in force for a limited period, unless a Resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament. That is the real security. It may well be as a matter of drafting that it is not possible to devise exactly what you may have to do, and a very considerable check ought to be exercised by Parliament. I agree that the check does not go far enough. I think 14 days is absurd, and that seven days should be the very limit of the time; but that is a matter for Committee. There are other Amendments
which I venture to submit to the Government, or rather to the House. I hope that there will be considerable modifications in the times mentioned in the Bill. There is also what I think must be a slip in the drafting. Some limit should be placed on the duration of the proclamation of a state of emergency. At present, so far as I can see, it need never come to an end, and you would really always have power of issuing Regulations. I do not think that is right.
The Main proposition is whether this is a necessary and desirable Bill. I must say I think some measure of this kind is necessary. I am not sure that my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches always realise that a general strike is really different in kind from the old industrial disputes. It is not the same kind of thing at all. Take a general coal or railway strike. The object is not to hit the owners of the coal mines or the owners of the railways. The old industrial dispute was this. The owners did something or failed to do something which their employés thought was an injustice. Thereupon the employés said, "You shall not make any profit out of your undertaking until you agree to remedy this injustice." That was the substance of the old strike and that was the purely industrial dispute. When you come to so big a thing as a general strike, you do a great deal more than that. What you really do is to say, "We will inflict great inconvenience or hardship on the whole community unless our particular demands are conceded." That is a very serious matter, and I venture to submit to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches that it is a matter for them very carefully to consider whether a general strike is really consistent with the action of a constitutional party. You can be a constitutional party or you can be a revolutionary party, but you never can be both, and if you try to be both the only result will be that you will lose the confidence of the people as a constitutional party and you will not be effective as a revolutionary party. Therefore, putting it as a pure, dry proposition of logic, I venture to submit to them that it is a matter for them very carefully to consider whether the general strike is a weapon that really can be used in a constitutional country, and whether they are not running very grave risks of losing
support and popularity in the country, and ultimately the chance of seriously affecting the legislation of the country in the way that they desire, by adopting tactics and methods of this kind.
Whether that be so or not, I myself am of opinion that a community and a Government faced with a thing like a general strike are bound to take measures—it stands to reason—to prevent serious disaster happening to the country, and I think they are right in saying that it is better that they should take those powers by a Bill designed for that purpose rather than rely on the operation of the old Defence of the Realm Act, which is a singularly tyrannical measure and which we would all like to see abolished and destroyed from the legislation of this country. But, having said that, I very earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friends to consider whether they are wise in proceeding with the Bill at the present time. I agree most fully with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting has just said. This is not asking the Government to do anything which could possibly injure their prestige or look like weakness. Sometimes very weak-kneed people are afraid to do a thing because it looks like weakness, but I am sure that that would not apply to so strong and resolute a Government as we have now. They tell us that the Bill was drafted months back, but why on earth did they not introduce it then? Why wait till this moment to introduce it, when the negotiations are proceeding and are, we hope, on the point of arriving at some solution of this great difficulty? I cannot think it is right to do it. It is quite true my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law), with that northern love of logic, explained very elaborately that this is not in fact a threat, and is not in fact provocative. It may not be, but to me it is not very material whether it is or is not provocative, if it is so regarded by one of the parties to the dispute. That is the essence of the matter; and what is the reason that he gives for pressing it on now? Why does he want it immediately?
I have listened in vain for any adequate reason for passing the Bill at this moment. He says that the coal mines emergency has not arisen, and he says very truly that when Parliament is sitting this Bill will not be necessary at
all, because Parliament would always hasten to grant the necessary powers, so that if an emergency does arise with reference to the coal dispute, you could always come to this House and in a few hours obtain all such legislation as this without the slightest difficulty or, I should think, the slightest opposition from anybody in the House. Therefore, I do not understand why it is that he wants to press it forward now. I have heard it suggested by acute Parliamentarians that it is thought to be a good time to get it through, that the Parliamentary atmosphere is favourable for a measure of this kind. I cannot believe my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench are foolish enough to indulge in any calculations of that kind, for the mere suspicion that that was the cause of pressing on this Bill would be enough to convert the Parliamentary atmosphere into a very bad one instead of a good one. Besides, what do they want with an atmosphere in this House? Do they seriously think that many of the hon. Members whom I see in the House would refuse them anything in the world they asked for? Of course they would not. The real appeal I make to my right hon. Friends is this: that the Government should consider the matter very carefully, and that they should not do anything which could possibly imperil the negotiations or which can lead people outside to think that they are indifferent to the success of the negotiations. I am convinced that nothing could be so disastrous, and I think that if the Government could bring themselves to adjourn this Debate, say, for a week or something of that kind, they would really meet the whole case. I am satisfied that there would be no serious opposition to the Second Beading of this Bill at the end of that time. They would have avoided the terrible risks that they run should they insist on passing this Bill through now, and they really would obtain everything they possibly could require.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think I am right in saying that the great majority of the Members of this House felt a shock of surprise when the Leader of the House, in reply to a question by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, intimated the intention of the Government to proceed with this measure to-day, and certainly it was a shock and a surprise
to the public Everyone expected, and I think rightly expected, that now that the parties to the great dispue were in close personal touch once again with each other, everything which might be assumed to bear any unkind interpretation or suggestion of irritation or provocation would be omitted. I am quite sure myself that not a single member of the Government desires to introduce any element either of irritation or provocation, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes) so clearly pointed out, what all Governments really need to study is not so much words which form proposals for legislation, but the psychology of the situation with which they have to deal, and it is perfectly clear to anybody who thinks for a moment that to-morrow morning, if this Measure receives its Second Beading, there will be created an atmosphere outside this House which will be distinctly harmful to the progress of friendly negotiations. That, I very much regret to say, is a fact which cannot be very well disputed. The next point which I would make is, that being the case, where is the justification for the emergency? Unless the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General is prepared to spring some legal surprise of which I have no shadow of an idea at present, it is commonly accepted that suppose the lightning strike occurred to-morrow and every railway stopped working, the Executive are clothed to-day in every substantial aspect with the same powers as they had at this time last year for dealing with it. Unless that is not the case, it places the Government in a very awkward position to justify pressing on with this legislation to-day.
The third point I would make is this. The proposals of the Government contain elements of more drastic and sweeping alterations in the existing law of the country, apart from the Defence of the Realm Regulations, than have been proposed in relation to the liberty of the subject and the control over his own property at any time during the past 50 years. That is a matter which calls for, on the part of this House of Commons and any House of Commons, the most careful and cautious consideration, because one of the chief functions of this House, next to the preservation of peace—and indeed not next to it—is the defence of the liberties of the subject, and there never has been a time, except where the thing feared
had actually arisen, when this House of Commons has ever granted sweeping drastic changes in law. That contingency has not yet happened, and there is very much reason to hope that, given goodwill and the right atmosphere, it will not happen. That being the case, what justification can the Government find for pressing on with this Measure in the haste that they are showing to-day? It was only by pressure, after questions from this side of the House, backed up by a general agreement of Members on all sides of the House, against pressing all stages of this Measure to-day, that the Leader of the House at once gave way to it. I am sorry that neither he nor the Prime Minister is here at the moment. There is one other remarkable fact which I hope the Home Secretary will convey to his colleagues. There has not yet been in any speech from these Benches disagreement with the position that the Executive ought to be clothed with exceptional powers for dealing with the new state of affairs which has arisen. That is not denied by any speaker yet from these Benches, and that seems to me to be a very remarkable factor with which the Government must deal in the decision which they are going to take as to whether or not they are going to press the Second Beading of this Measure to-day. I hope they will not. I really think there is good ground for believing that they will alter their previous decision in the matter, and I have got a suggestion to make to the House.
In the absence of the Prime Minister, I would rather address myself very respectfully through you, Sir, to the House. My suggestion is this. Agreeing that the emergency has not arisen, and will not arise, this week—I do not think it will—and agreeing also that the subject ought not to be indefinitely shelved, what I suggest is, that the Government should set up one of the finest instruments of the House of Commons, namely, a Select Committee to inquire into the proposals of the Government, and to have before it representatives from the various Departments to ascertain what their ideas are as to the Regulations they would suggest. If that is done, we shall know what we are in for. You cannot tell what the Department have in their mind, and, after all, we know as practical men that it is the departmental chiefs, with all the
vast store of knowledge and experience handed down from one chief to another, that really formulate the proposal. The political head, as we know, is a man who changes from one Session to another. It is in the experience of the Departments that you really get at what the proposals are. A Select Committee of fifteen Members of this House, or more, could be set up They could hear from the Departments themselves what the proposals are with regard to these Regulations, and in that way they could recommend a form of legislation which would, at any rate, have seen the daylight. The public would be instructed in it, Members of this House would be instructed in it, and, best of all, you would restore the atmosphere which at present is being seriously deteriorated. Above all other things, what is really necessary is to prevent the atmosphere getting wrong.
There can be no doubt that the result of the proposal of the Government and the continuance of this Debate to-night will be a serious handicap, and may, for all we know, when these things are on the balance, tip down the scale on the wrong-side. I put these suggestions to the Government, and I earnestly trust that they will see what is the right thing to be done. Over and over again they have said—and I am certain they have been thoroughly sincere in it—that no question of amour-propre, or anything of that kind, is going to weigh with them in these great matters. The same with regard to right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party. Things are much too serious for that. I do hope and pray, therefore, that the Government will give way to what, I believe, is something approaching the general sense of the House, and allow this Second Reading to be adjourned.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: While I am generally a loyal supporter of the Government, while I do not think it has lost all capacity or authority because the Noble Lord and myself have withdrawn from it, and while experience has proved to me the necessity of some sort of legislation of this character, nevertheless I regard it as extremely unfortunate that it should be introduced at this juncture. I am aware of the extraordinary endeavours being made by many of my Friends on the other side to re-establish peace in the community. I know something of the
psychology of a Labour conference, and I am sure that if the Government persist in passing the Second Reading of this Bill it will result on Wednesday in the one issue being presented to the conference, namely, the endeavour of the Government to force through legislation for an emergency which has not really arisen. I think the most powerful point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) was his explanation on that point. Therefore, I do venture to join my appeal to others that have been addressed to the Government and ask that they do not proceed with the measure further on this occasion. Still, I have stated my conviction that some such legislation is necessary. Undoubtedly, industrial disputes in this country are changing in character, and I feel that, even if my hon. Friends on the other side come into power, sooner or later they will require some such powers as are set forth in this Bill if they are to carry on the government of the country. I believe that they will carry with them the concurrence of the majority of organised labour in the community. During the railway strike of last year I happened to be Food Controller. I was of course subjected, as everybody else was who was connected with the Government, to a good deal of criticism, and it was alleged—and wrongfully alleged—that because I carried out the duties of the office, necessarily I had taken sides against the railwaymen. But whatever party is in power, it will be charged with the imperative need of feeding our people and furnishing them with the necessities of life. Therefore, I am sure that we can get a large measure of agreement, and endow the Government with powers to carry out those primary duties in whatever emergency may arise.
Thus, I would like to associate myself with the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. I had already noted the suggestion, but I am glad that he made it. I believe that there is a larger measure of agreement regarding the general principles of the Bill than will appear if we continue the discussion in the present atmosphere. So far as I am able to understand, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour party, the Liberal party, and all others who have spoken, admit that it is desirable that a Government should have full power to carry on the life of the community
in the event of such a catastrophe as a national strike, or methods of direct action being adopted by a large number of people in the community. Therefore I think we can say there is a general agreement respecting the basic principle of the Bill. But I have not had time, nor do I regard myself as competent, to follow out all the implications of the Bill. It may be, as some have urged, that the powers taken are altogether wide, or the explanation may be, as given by the Noble Lord, that the draughtsmen were bound to frame the Bill widely, but that, of course, the restraining factor is Parliament. I am not sure whether that is the case, but I do feel that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and I support the suggestion made because I honestly feel that it meets the occasion. I want a Bill of some character passed. I believe that the Government must have power. I believe that, whatever party is in power, they will realise it, and I would rather that my hon. Friends on the other side were relieved of having to do that if and when they come into power, because their action will be even more difficult than that of the present Government.
If the Bill can be subjected to proper analysis by a Select Committee, with a clear understanding that reference to such Committee is not intended to destroy the measure, but that all parties will cooperate in order to produce as early as possible a measure which will carry general acceptance, I believe that that will meet the necessities of the case, for, after all, what has occurred within the last few days to warrant the introduction and passage of this Bill? I have some knowledge of the fact that some such Bill has been on the stocks for a long while. I know that it is difficult to select a time for the introduction of such a measure as will not create misunderstanding anywhere. 'But it is not applicable to the present situation. The miners' strike, we hope, is going to be resolved. I am not going to discuss that matter here. My views are well-known, and I regard anybody to-day, whether employer or employed, who fails to do anything possible to avert a strike, as not only a danger, but a real menace to the whole community. But there is nothing exceptional happening now, and I cannot see that the Government will lose anything by adopting
the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). During the strike last year I had many of the strikers giving me assistance. It is a fact that officials of the Railwaymen's Union rallied to the support of the Ministry of Food, because they recognised, at any rate, that the women and children of the land ought to be fed, and I believe that it is the general view of organised labour, and that they will be prepared to support the Government in the enactment of a measure in order to secure that in a case of national emergency. Therefore, you may assume, I think, that you will carry the concurrence and support of all the community which is worth having.

Viscountess ASTOR: I rise to support the various Members of the House who have urged the Government not to bring in this Bill just now. I agree that it is not really a provocative Bill, but it will be used by our provocative amateur Bolshevists throughout the country, and, unfortunately, they are not confined to the House of Commons. They abound in trade union meetings, and I feel that this Bill, if passed at this moment, will strengthen their hands and weaken the hands of members of the trade unions and members of the Labour party who are doing everything in their power to bring about a settlement. I agree that this Bill is not brought in to break trade unions. The Government knows perfectly well that it cannot break trade unions. The Government knows that the only thing that will break trade unions will be for trade unions to try to break governments. It has been put by my Noble Friend opposite, and various Members who have spoken, that the Government does not really need this thing, and that it has powers which most of the House of Commons, I believe, want it to have under D.O.R.A. The people who do not want the Government to have these powers are very few. I do not want to appeal to the Government, because there are so few of them present to whom to appeal. I do not like" to appeal to the minority. I like to appeal to the majority. I do not want to appeal to Members whom the Noble Lord opposite said—I think he called them abject Members.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: indicated dissent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Or perhaps it was quiet followers of the Government. I do not believe they are. I have a pretty high opinion of Members of the House of Commons. I feel they have got a great opportunity now of showing the Government what is the spirit of the House. If the Government really needed these powers we would all of us vote for them, and I believe in doing so would have the support of the country. But they do not need them at this moment, and we must take the matter at the psychological moment. I know what trade union congresses are. I know the temper of the ordinary miner, and I feel what will happen on Wednesday if this goes through is that the delegates will not talk of anything else. I am not referring to the leaders, but to the amateur Bolshevists, who, whether they are in or out of the House, are a nuisance—they will have the power to make a noise. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting put it clearly: Are we going to strengthen the hands of the real Labour leaders or the hands of the Bolsheviks? I think the temper throughout the whole of the country is so extraordinary now that the Government—owing a good deal to its conciliatory manner and determination—and the Government, too, is firm!—I do not take so bad a view of the Government as does the Noble Lord opposite nor as the Labour leaders—I think the Government is one far better than either of them could produce. I want to strengthen the hands of the Government by begging them to postpone the Bill—and not so much the hands of the Government, but the hands of the House of Commons. We have seen in the House of Commons Members even from these Benches who are political profiteers abusing the profiteers on the other Benches, and I do not know which profiteer is worse. They are both bad enough in their way. There are also plenty of political profiteers in the Labour party. Do not make any mistake about that, and they are taking great advantage of the grievance of the War.
I appeal to the House of Commons to show the Government to-night that they are unwise in pressing this measure. Do not let us dwell on the merits of the Bill. They will come on later in Committee if the Government want this passed, for they have a large majority, and can bring
it about. But they do not need it now. We may weaken the hands of the Labour leaders and strengthen the hands of the Bolshevists. Anyhow, we do not want to give the impression that the Government want to fight this thing to a finish. I do not think that that is the spirit of the House of Commons. I believe the spirit of the House of Commons is that they desire a settlement; of this matter as amicably as possible. The Government is strong enough to give in, and I hope it will give in, to the wishes of the majority of the House of Commons to-night. I trust that these abject followers will show that their spirit is as strong as that of the Labour leaders, for we want to do everything that we can to help to strengthen their hands in the conference on Wednesday. I think, on the whole, we have got the country behind us. If it comes to a fight, the Government will always have a vast majority of the people behind them if they are fighting for the country. But this is not a question of fighting. The Bill looks a little like panic legislation. We in the House of Commons are not in a panic. We are most sober, and wise, and we are neither afraid of the Government nor of the Labour leaders. Once more I urge upon the Government that we do not to-night want this. It is an unwise thing from the psychological point of view to press this Bill on.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The Noble Lord who spoke from she Bench beside me (Lord R. Cecil), addressed some very serious and solemn words to the leaders of the Labour party opposite, with regard to them deciding on which side they were—whether they were on the side of revolution or on the side of constitutional government He assured them that they must make their choice, and that they could not be on both sides, for they would inevitably fall in any attempt of this sort. I would not be surprised if some of them do not retort by addressing some serious and solemn words to the Noble Lord, asking him to make up his mind whether he is for or against this Bill. He cannot be both for it and against it. He made two very excellent speeches. The first part of his speech was in strong support of the Bill, and the second part of a very able and powerful speech urged the Government to withdraw the Bill.

Lord R. CECIL: No.

Mr. SCOTT: Well, I could not understand it. I had some difficulty in understanding what was meant. I listened very carefully to the speech of the Noble Lord, and I could not make up my mind, after listening, in which lobby he intended to vote, or whether he intended to vote in any Lobby. I doubt whether in these circumstances abstention from voting and delivering double speeches is an attitude which is really helpful in a situation of this kind.

Lord R. CECIL: I can explain in two words, if my hon. Friend will allow my interruption. I am in favour of adjourning this Debate for a week.

Mr. SCOTT: My Noble Friend referred to hon. Members opposite who support the Government. He referred to them as adorning the Benches opposite. I am sure that he has a decorative effect upon these Benches. But I cannot think that by the attitude he is adopting at this moment, and has on other recent occasions adopted, he is adding much to the enlightenment of these Benches.
I approach this Bill naturally, as I would approach all similar proposals, with an attitude of suspicion. I listened very carefully to the two speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen who lead the Opposition to ascertain on what grounds they based their opposition to the Bill. There was first of all the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Fife. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, Paisley!"] No, I mean the hon. Member for East or rather West Fife (Mr. Adamson). He used some strong language, but he did not condescend to particulars. "He was very much opposed to the Bill." "It was profoundly to be regretted." "It was deeply to be deplored." "It was provocative." And he referred with a contemptuous wave of his hand to proposals" of such a nature and" legislation of this character." But of what character and of what nature? What is "deeply to be deplored "? What is "profoundly to be regretted"? I listened carefully throughout his speech. There was no condescending details. The Bill was profoundly to be regretted because he did not like it! We must take his word for it. For there was no argument, reason, or statement of the particulars in which the Bill was to be condemned.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was different in character. He did condescend to particulars. His objection, I think, was on two grounds. The first objection was that the Government had already got the powers that were proposed in this Bill: therefore the Bill was unnecessary. I will later refer to that particular objection. Here, how ever, I would merely say that that was not in any sense an objection to the principle of the Bill. There was nothing in that to be construed into anything in the way of argument against the principle of the Bill. The second objection, and I think the only real objection, of my right hon. Friend was this: he read out seriatim a number of particular phrases which he held were ill-defined. There was first of all as to what was meant by action being "immediately threatened." Then he asked what was meant by the words water, fuel, light, "and other necessities." Then, again, what was meant by the "essentials of life"? Lastly—I think this was the last of the objections quoted—there was the suggestion that fourteen days was too long a period after the meeting of Parliament for the Bill to remain in operation. Everyone will, I think, agree that there is not a single one of those objections which is an objection to the principle of the Bill or directed against any of the powers of the Bill. They were all Committee points—important Committee points. It is very desirable that these phrases should be well considered as to what is meant by them, but the points could all be put forward consistently by a strong supporter of the principle of the Bill.
I submit, therefore, that neither of the two leaders of the Opposition put forward, or attempted to put forward, any objection to the principles contained in the Bill. It would be very difficult to do so. After listening to the speech of the Leader of the House what is it to what one would object? Power as stated by him is taken in this Bill in the event of the vital necessaries of life of the people being prejudiced. Power is taken to commandeer all supplies of food, coal, cars, and to use them for securing adequate distribution to the people who may be starving for the essential necessaries
of life. Who objects to this? These are the very things which hon. Members opposite on the Labour Benches would be the first to advocate, and these are vital and essential purposes of the Bill. If the Bill goes beyond that, or if it fails to secure these purposes, the Bill could be amended in Committee. It is true there is a suggestion, I think it was from my hon. and learned Friend opposite in the corner seat, in a clearer way than from any Members who spoke from the Opposition Bench that if this Bill were passed it might be used to impose forced labour. Let me carry it further. It might be used for the purpose of strike-breaking and to put I forget how many hundreds of thousands of miners in prison.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not say that.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. SCOTT: That argument can be carried further. There is the same idea in other words. The idea clearly expressed in reference to forced labour can be carried further, and the suggestion made that this Bill might be used for putting into prison so many hundreds of thousands of miners and so many hundreds of thousands of railwaymen. For my part I do not believe it would be possible, legally, to frame Regulations under this Bill which could have that effect. In the second place, I do not believe, even if it were possible to frame Regulations under the Bill, that it would be possible to put them in operation. You cannot imprison hundreds of thousands of people, and, even if you could, it would merely be playing their game, because you would be providing them with free sustenance and free lodging. If a strike, involving large numbers of men, were proceeding week after week until the men's funds were exhausted and the women and children were feeling the pinch, then, as a means of prolonging the strike, the whole of these men would welcome being put into prison. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Therefore, it is not feasible to think that any such operation could be carried out under the provisions of this Bill. Thirdly, even supposing it were possible to do it under the Bill, and that a Government would attempt to put it into operation if it were possible, the House would have complete control. If it were sitting it could deal with the matter the next day, and if it were not sitting it would have to he called together within a fortnight, and it could
deal with the matter then. I do not think there is any substance in the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend opposite. I cannot conceive a Bill which could be framed in a more democratic and constitutional form. The whole character of this Bill is democratic and constitutional; the whole power which it confers is based upon the consent of this House and upon the consent of the elected representatives of the people. It is provided that if any Regulations are made under this Bill, the House, if it is not sitting, should be called together within a fortnight, and that these Regulations shall lapse altogether unless both Houses of Parliament pass a Resolution accepting and adopting them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not for 14 days, though."] My right hon. Friend said it was the intention that the Regulations should lapse if the House of Commons, immediately on its meeting, failed to endorse them. Seeing that that is so, even if it were held that under the wording of the Bill as it is at present there must be an interval of 14 days, that could be altered in Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "If Parliament is not sitting it must be 14 days."] If it is important to call Parliament together, as my hon. Friend suggested, that period could be altered to seven days, or even less. There is no substance in that objection. It is a mere Committee point. I submit that if and when the Labour party come into power, if they attempt to carry out the very numerous provisions in their programme, they will be bound to ask from Parliament powers as large as these and very much larger. They will be quite right in doing so. They will fail absolutely to carry out many parts of their programme—quite a constitutional programme—if they did not equip themselves with some such powers as are here referred to.
I promised at the beginning, when I was dealing with the first objection put forward by the right hon. Member for Paisley, to refer to it again. That is the objection that the Government already have all the powers which are conferred under this Bill. I am doubtful if it is so; I am not quite sure. I understood the Leader of the House to say that it was not so. I wish to leave no doubt as to the line I am taking, and on which I shall go. If the Government have already got the full powers which are being sought in
this Bill, then I think they are not doing right in proceeding with it at this moment. Why do I think so? Before the House rose for the Autumn Recess I begged the Government to proceed forthwith with other important and imperative legislation dealing with the state of affairs in Ireland. In spite of that, the House was adjourned. The situation in Ireland has certainly not improved. We were told that the first business of this House on its reassembling would be to deal with the imperatively pressing matter of the situation in Ireland. One week has already gone away, and the second week is going. If the Government are already armed with the full powers which they seek here, then they have no justification whatever in postponing dealing with the matter of the situation in Ireland, which was put down for the first day the House met and also for to-day. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or whoever is in a position to speak for the Government with legal authority, to address himself to this question, and to tell the House what is the position with regard to the powers already possessed by the Government. Have they in full, at the present time, the powers conferred by this Bill? If they have I shall certainly vote for the postponement of the consideration of the measure. If they have not these powers, then I shall certainly vote for the Bill.

Sir EDWARD CARSON: Having listened to the greater part of this Debate without any bias, as an abject follower of the Government, the matter has, so far as I can understand it, come down to a very narrow point. We have not really been discussing for a long time—except the last speaker—the merits or demerits of this Bill. We have been discussing the simple question whether the Bill ought to be read a Second time to-day. If such a measure as this is necessary to save the lives and the comforts of the people, or to deal with anarchy arising out of general strikes in the country, I have not heard from any of the Benches any real objection to the Bill at all. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting said that of course, under such circumstances as that, whatever Government were in power would have to get such a Bill as this. As I understand it, the case made is this: there is a great deal of fear expressed on
the Labour Benches and other Benches that to go on with the Bill to-day or tomorrow may interfere with the very delicate negotiations which are now in progress between the miners and others and His Majesty's Government. It is said that there is to be a Trade Union Congress meeting on Wednesday, and that this Bill will upset them. I do not know how far that is so or not.
I cannot but imagine that all these matters must be present in the mind of His Majesty's Government. Surely it must be present, above all others, to the Government, who are carrying on these negotiations, and whose sincerity in wishing to get these negotiations successfully through I cannot imagine anyone "questioning what will be the effect of the course they are taking to-day. They take a very serious responsibility, in face of these facts, in saying that they want the Second Reading of this Bill. In a crisis like this, and at a time like this, if the Government, who above all others have charge of the peace of the country and who must be praying for peace from day to day, say, "Notwithstanding all these considerations we want the Second Reading of this Bill," I should find it very hard to say that I know better than the Government, The Government burden of keeping the peace of the country, they bear the burden, if anything goes wrong, of supporting the men, women and children, and their absolute duty is to take any measures that will prevent starvation and disaster to the homes of the people. While I am greatly affected by the speech of the right hon. Member for Platting, who put his case very fairly, and while I take the whole of it as being a matter which requires the very gravest consideration, I could not take upon myself, however I might be affected by these considerations, the responsibility of not voting for a measure which the Government themselves say is necessary for the country.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I want to reply at once to the very fair statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe he has touched the essence of the case. I do not believe that the majority, not only of hon. Members in this House, but of the trade unionists of the country, even those who are engaged in this dispute, would for a moment desire
to support a policy, or to lay it down, that in an industrial dispute the duty of the Government was not clearly to feed the community as a whole. Even in the railway strike, as my right hon. Friend the ex-Food Controller said, although I was leading that strike, I took the responsibility of publicly saying to my people, and urging them to realise, that in a matter of this kind the community must be the first consideration. So that there is common agreement between us as to the intentions of the Bill. I think I am entitled to say that. There is not, however, common agreement as to how far the Bill goes or as to the wisdom of introducing the Bill at the present time. The Leader of the House, in introducing this measure, did not disguise from the House, in fact, he stated it clearly and distinctly, that all the powers under this Bill are already enjoyed by the Government, but it was under war emergency legislation. He said, "Our reason for not exercising those powers is because we may be accused of using emergency powers obtained during the War in times of peace." I think that is not unfairly stating the right hon. Gentleman's view, because he has already stated that the Government have used those powers during peace time, and no one complained. The Government used those powers last year in the railway strike. You had the same powers then as you have got to-day. You had precisely the same powers then, and you exercised them, and no one challenged you. This House certainly did not challenge you, but readily supported the Government.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman if that be the case, and if there is common agreement, it cannot be said that there are any special circumstances at the moment with which the Government have not got power to deal. I would ask that whatever was the feeling a week ago, surely this is the occasion for saying at this moment that strong as has been the Government's case and that of the miners, we are all entitled to say that the conduct of our people has been of the best. I venture to say that in no other country in the world could you have so many men and women unemployed, and such an upheaval in the industrial arena with so little disturbance and so much good feeling on both sides. We all feel that we are entitled to be proud of it because, after all, that is the barometer
of the future of the country, and it is the clearest indication that so far as the people as a whole are concerned they do want to play cricket; they may disagree with you and take opposite sides, but in main they do want to play fair.
The Strike has gone on for nine days, and is it not true to say that the position is more hopeful than it was a week ago. I know it is so in the railway world, and I think we are entitled to keep those things clearly in mind. If there is no danger so far as the powers possessed by the Government are concerned then there can be no danger to the community, because we would not be entitled—I say it quite frankly—to stand up here and say to the Government you have no right to take these powers because we do not think something will happen, and then if it did happen they could say, "the responsibility is yours." We do not take up that attitude. We say quite clearly, "You have admitted that all the powers for dealing with these disputes are now possessed by you, and why seek further powers that are unnecessary?"
The right hon. Gentleman made a statement that, in my judgment, warrants us begging of him to withdraw his proposal. He said: "Let the House be under no misapprehension; we have considered for several months the advisability of legislation of this kind, and we have chosen a time for introducing it when negotiations are taking place." I know that neither my right hon. Friend nor the Government intend to be provocative. I have no hesitation in saying publicly that, in my view, the Government are as anxious for peace as anybody else. On the other hand, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to visualise a conference in two days' time where six million organised workers will be represented, and the issue there will be what is to be the attitude of six million organised workers towards the miners' dispute. There will be people there who without hesitation will say: "This is not an industrial dispute, this is not a question of 2s. a day for the miners, but this is an organised attempt by capital, supported by the Government, to fight trade unionism." You all know that that has been said already, and the Prime Minister has replied to it. I am merely dealing with what will be said. What is the answer? It is that, although the Government for months have been contemplating legislation of this kind,
although the Leader of the House admitted that they had all the powers which they now are seeking, although there was common agreement amongst the Government that there was no danger to the community because every power they want they now possess, although all that came out clearly in debate, yet they have chosen this moment, above all others, to go on with their Bill.
I put it on those grounds. They are not only legitimate grounds, but they are the kind of things we must take into consideration. I will go further. If the Government were in a position to get up and say: "Not only had we not the powers, but we do not believe that this House would pass them," that would be a legitimate argument. But everyone knows that in a crisis such as we are now passing through, there is no power that the Government could seek which this House would not give them very speedily indeed. Everybody knows that perfectly well. I will take some of the language of the Bill, and I will deal with one Clause only. Regulations must be framed for which the Government are responsible, and one Regulation is to the effect that if the railwaymen this week chose to meet and threatened to strike, that is actionable under the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There are responsible legal gentlemen who say that is so. That is an interpretation which responsible legal people say could be placed on these Regulations.
All I plead for is this. I do not think the Government gain anything by taking the Second Heading now. Many of the speeches which have been made and much of the matter contained in them will not be debated on the Second Reading again if it is found necessary to introduce the Bill again. I think I am entitled to put that point, because we are not pleading for obstruction and that is not our intention. I say that quite frankly. We are not taking this course from that standpoint at all. We are merely saying that you gain nothing by this course. We believe you have all the powers which are necessary, and we believe that you lose by pressing the Second Reading at this stage when you originally intended to get the whole Bill in one day. It means now that you have to have another day, and you can get all the same powers in that one day that you would get by pressing it at this moment. It is because I do not
believe there is any advantage to the Government or that there is anything gained—you have already indicated that you do not seek additional power, and we are as anxious as you are for peace—it is because I believe it is essential to the future of the country that this dispute should be speedily settled and an honourable settlement be arrived at that I appeal to the Prime Minister to withdraw the Second Reading of this Bill. Later on the right hon. Gentleman can get all he wants in one day just as he will get it even if we proceed to a Division now. If this course is taken it will be another indication of the many instances that the Prime Minister has given of his desire to arrive at an honourable settlement of this industrial dispute.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that anything will be gained by discussing now the legal interpretation of the various Clauses of this Bill. There is at any rate no intention on the part of the Government to seek powers of the character which the right hon. Gentleman has described in reference to the railway-men. That is not the purpose of the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman says there are legal advisers of his who place that interpretation upon it, the matter can easily be put right in Committee. It is therefore not necessary to discuss whether the interpretation placed upon it by our legal advisers or by his is the correct one, because that can be set right by Amendments in Committee. I should also like to deal with the suggestion which has been made that there are people who say that this is an attack upon trade unionism. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) himself did not endorse that opinion, and no one who reads the Bill can possibly do so.
Even if you had a trade union Government they would find it just as necessary to be equipped with this Bill as a Government which is commonly called a capitalist Government. The purpose of the Bill is of a totally different character. It is one which is rendered absolutely necessary by the contingencies with which we have been confronted not merely this year but last year. The Leader of the House has already told us that this is a Bill which we have been considering for some time and that we have found it absolutely essential to introduce it now. My right hon. Friend says that we have these
powers under the Defence of the Realm Act. That is not the advice we get from the Departments, and I know that there are some essential particulars in which it is exceedingly doubtful whether we have those powers or not.

Mr. THOMAS: You have exercised them.

The PRIME MINISTER: No, we have not exercised them. It is true that we have had them by voluntary assistance, and they were not challenged. If they were challenged we could not possibly enforce them. They are powers which are vital to the carrying on of the essential services of the nation in the event of there being a strike. As far as I can see there is no difference of opinion in the House as to the desirability of having a Bill of this kind. It is purely a question whether this is an opportune moment for pressing it. I will take that point. I do not think any moment would be regarded as opportune. Let us take the possibilities. Suppose the threat of the Railway Executive, carried against the advice of the most experienced leaders of the railwaymen, had materialised. On Sunday night we should have had a stoppage of the whole railway system of the country without these powers. So serious was the position that we really had to discuss the question whether we should not have a Saturday sitting and take steps for a meeting of the House of Lords, because we should not have been justified in going on for a single day without having the powers which are contained here. My right hon. Friend says that the strike is off. That is so for the present, and I hope it will be off altogether. But I am not going to say that it will, and while negotiations are going on I do not think it would be an advantage even to indicate an opinion whether I am hopeful or whether I am not.
I understand that the Miners' Executive are meeting in the course of the next half-hour. It is conceivable that they might not see their way to accept the proposals which have been made. Just see the position we shall be in. The railwaymen have only postponed their strike. There are talks of a transport strike in sympathy. The railwaymen have claimed what the miners have never claimed—the right to strike without notice or with a very short notice. We
should be in a position where we could not, without some inevitable delay, secure these powers. There would be a gap which would be a very serious one. What is to be gained by delay? This discussion has been conducted very calmly. There is no one here who has pointed out anything in these powers which is outrageous or tyrannical or despotic. Up to the present the opposition has been entirely on the ground of time. If it were a Bill that could fairly be described as an attack on the rights of trade unions, then I could understand there would be a very bitter Debate. But these are powers which everybody regards as essential, if there were a strike of the character I have described, powers to enable us to commandeer vehicles, to enable us, under certain conditions, even, to commandeer food. My right hon. Friend said the representatives of 6,000,000 trade unionists are meeting on Wednesday. These 6,000,000 and their families are just as interested in getting these powers as anyone. My right hon. Friend must not assume that they are not interested in the fair distribution of food. They do not want large accumulations of food in favoured neighbourhoods, whereas in the neighbourhood where they may happen to live there might be a shortage of food. They do not want the Government without any power to see that the food is fairly distributed.
These are powers which we had during the War. Of them, I am told, some of the most vital, we have not at the present moment. As to others we are very doubtful. Apart from that, there is always the objection—it is an objection that has been raised repeatedly in this House—that we are using, two years after the War, powers that were given us for the prosecution of the War, for the purposes of peace. That would be much mere provocative. It would have been said, you "are using powers which you got for the purpose of fighting the Germans in order to fight the trade unionists! Let us have the civilian powers with which every Government ought to be equipped for feeding the community, and not merely for feeding the community, but for providing the community with coal. You do not want the East End to be starving while the West End has plenty of coal. This is only a Bill to equip us with the necessary powers for the fair distribution of these
necessaries. What is there unkindly about it? It is said to be provocative. Is it provocative to ask the House to give us powers to enable us to see that the working classes are not without food when other neighbourhoods have plenty, and not without coal while others have it in abundance? Is it provocative to ask the House to give us the necessary powers to see that the lighting stations are running, and that the trams are running as far as possible? How can that be regarded as provocative? Frankly, I see no signs of irritation and exasperation being caused by this Bill. We have been engaged practically all day in discussing very grave matters which are in issue between the miners and the nation. I have seen no signs that this Bill is provocative.

Mr. THOMAS: It has been assumed that the Bill will be withdrawn.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is inaccurate, for the simple reason that we stated the first thing this morning that it was not to be withdrawn. Therefore no one assumed that. The negotiations proceeded with that full knowledge. We stated quite clearly why we wanted these powers—we wanted them in order to get an equitable and fair distribution, and to do that it was essential that we should have these powers. I say, speaking on the responsibility of the Government for conducting the affairs of the nation, in view of contingencies—not probabilities, but possible contingencies with which we have been confronted in the last two days, and of which we have had notice, contingencies which have been organised—

Mr. THOMAS: indicated dissent.

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that tentative arrangements have been made by what is known as the Triple Alliance which would paralyse the whole life of the nation. Let us be quite open on each side. Are the Triple Alliance to make arrangements in advance and the Government to make none. What is there provocative in that? They made arrangements and discussed them among themselves. I am not complaining of that. The House of Commons has a responsibility, not to 6,000,000 people but to 46,000,000, which includes the 6,000,000. Our responsibility is just as great as that
of the right hon. Gentleman to the railwaymen. It is wider. The right hon. Gentleman's responsibility is wide but limited—

Mr. THOMAS: I never heard of this arrangement till now. It is very important. You are asking—

The PRIME MINISTER: Let me finish my point first. I am not asking a question, but putting an argument.

Mr. THOMAS: And my answer is, I never heard of it till now.

The PRIME MINISTER: I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the resolution passed last week, and protested against by him—a resolution which was carried twice against him by the railway-men. The railwaymem and the miners are the two most formidable parties in the Alliance. We have heard for months and months about an alliance between the various trades that have got in their hands the whole carriage of commodities inside the country and to the country. Just think of the position we should be in with a complete paralysis of transport and no power: no Government can accept responsibility for these contingencies which are discussed and debated and decided upon, and which are common talk in the trade union world, without making preparations for them. For that reason this Bill was prepared weeks and even months ago. It was intended to bring it in during the Autumn Session.

Mr. HOGGE: You never said so.

The PRIME MINISTER: I say so now. It is not a Bill drafted in the last few days. It was a contingency, and we should have been guilty of criminal neglect if we had not thought of it. There are certain powers which are vital, and grave doubts exist whether we possess them. Some of them we know that we do not possess. Under these circumstances, seeing that there is no one here who thinks there is anything outrageous or unfair or unjust in the Bill itself, I ask the House of Commons, realising the responsibility which we all feel, realising the possibilities which all hope will not materialise in the next forty-eight hours, but as to which we would be criminally negligent if we did not recognise as possibilities—I ask the House of Commons to give us this Bill now. To debate it when the conflict began would be a way rather to create
excitement, irritation and provocation. We should then have to discuss it in an atmosphere of heat instead of in that atmosphers in which we have been discussing the position, whether in this House or in the room in Downing Street, in the calm atmosphere of considering possibilities.

Mr. HOGGE: The Prime Minister[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, Divide! "]—has asked us not to discuss the Second Reading of this extraordinary Bill in an atmosphere of heat. One has to examine that request of the Prime Minister in the face of facts as we know them. We were told earlier in this Debate that this Bill was one of many measures which the Government had intended to put through as part of their legislative programme this Session. As a matter of fact, as both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister know, when any government comes before the House of Commons and the country with a legislative programme, they always do the House of Commons, at any rate, the courtesy of letting them know which measures they intend to put through during the Session. I would remind the Prime Minister that neither in the King's Speech nor in the statement of business made by the Leader of the House when we resumed for this Autumn Session was any mention made at all of this Bill. It is making a great call upon the credulity of those of us who, after all, however much we may respect the Government, are bound to question every statement that they make, to assume for a moment that it is true that the Govermen ever had any intention of passing into law, as part of their social and industrial or economic programme, a Bill which would give to the Executive—not of this Government alone, but of any government of whatever kind—the power to do what is asked for in this particular measure.

Sir WATSON RUTHERFORD: Shame!

Mr. HOGGE: I would remind my hon. Friend opposite what the circumstances are. He is as good a parliamentarian as there is in this House. He is as keen on a Government promise about any measure as any private Member of this House that I know. If it were a question concerning the pensions of civil servants, I am perfectly certain that my hon. Friend opposite would not accept with the same credulity the statement that has been
made from the Treasury Box this afternoon. I have heard him cast doubt upon the statements of the Government very many times. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it, and if for a moment it be the fact that the Government contemplated either this strike or any other kind of industrial disturbance, and had a measure for it which they thought would solve it, there are many channels open to them by which they could have communicated it to the public. It could have been done by question and answer in this House, 01* some of the newspapers or other ordinary channels of that kind could have been used, and we could have known that part of the policy of this Government was to set up, for the first time in this country, some kind of machinery whereby any government pressed into a corner by any industrial crisis could protect the nation. Therefore, for myself, I say that I do not believe for a single moment that the Government ever contemplated any such measure until the present emergency arose. I hesitate altogether to accept as correct the view expressed by my right hon. Friend that this was part of the policy of the Government. I say this further: We were asked this week to meet and discuss what the Government considered to be a much more important matter from the point of view of the unity of the Empire; we were asked to come together this week and discuss from day to day until it was finished the Home Rule Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—never mind the name—in order to get out of a position in Ireland which is worse from every point of view—from the point of view of food, of transport, of what is described in the Bill, to use their own words, as the "distribution of food, water, fuel, light or other necessities." In order to get Ireland out of that position, we were asked to continue the discussion of that Bill and to finish it this week. Surely the Government are as keen on settling the difficulty which exists in Ireland, which is present to them every moment of the day, which we are going to discuss, I believe, at a quarter-past eight to-night—surely they are as keen on discussing that, and on providing machinery for its solution, as they are on providing machinery to deal with a situation which has not arisen.
Earlier in the Debate we had a speech from the Leader of the Government, and I do not think I ever heard a poorer speech delivered by any Minister from
that bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—unless it be the one to which we have just listened. On the introduction of a Bill of some importance—and I gather that the Government consider this to be a Bill of importance—we are usually entitled to an explanation from some responsible Minister as to the necessity for the particular Bill. The Leader of the House gave no substantial reason why this Bill was at all necessary He contented himself with three dialectical arguments, which were really intended to persuade the House to give him the Second Reading of the Bill to-day. What were they? His first argument was that it was a Bill that he had meant all along to introduce. I have already said that I doubt that very much indeed, for the reasons which I have given. I do not believe for a single moment that, if we had not got the industrial circumstances which obtain outside, the Government would ever have postponed—assuming for a moment that they are in earnest, which is difficult to assume—the discussion of the Home Rule Bill in order to introduce a measure to create new powers, permanent powers, over and above what they have at the moment, to deal with the situation. For that reason I believe that the intention and purpose of the Government are entirely directed to this strike.
The Prime Minister, before he sat down, drew the juxtaposition of the Triple Alliance and the Government, and he said, "The Triple Alliance have made certain arrangements, and if those arrangements come into force, would it not be culpable on the part of the Government if they had not taken precautions to deal with that situation?" Presumably the Prime Minister knows something about the Triple Alliance. The Prime Minister spends the bulk of his time, or so it seems to an ordinary outsider, in meeting deputations and everybody that can be met except Members of this House. The last people in the world that he ever dreams of coming to are the Members of the House whom he leads. Therefore, he ought to know something about the Triple Alliance. If he does, he knows perfectly well that what he said about the Triple Alliance cannot be true, and the reason why it cannot be true is that the Triple Alliance is organised in such a fashion that it could not possibly come to the decision to which he said
it had come without reference to its members. It is perfectly true that two parts of the Triple Alliance have greater powers than the third part. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that the third part of the Triple Alliance can come to no decisions without reference to the different bodies that make up that part of the Triple Alliance. Then what does the Prime Minister mean? He wants us to face the facts, to talk quite frankly to each other. If he wants us to talk quite frankly to each other, why does he, at that box, make a statement which cannot be true, and which he knows is not true when he makes it? [HON. MEM-BEES: "Order, order!"] The Prime Minister is there. He is listening to what I have got to say. If he says that he is not, it only reveals the type of mind to which we object in a Prime Minister of this country. Hon. Members may laugh. They may think, in their present numerical supremacy, that they can laugh this small opposition down. They may try, but they will not prevent us from saying what we think. After all, we are not so much concerned whether hon. Members opposite listen to us or not; it is the great constituency outside these walls that listens. Hon. Members laugh again. If they had a little more notion of arithmetic and a little of the idea that the Prime Minister wanted to instil into all our minds the other day—the idea of what he called "perspective "—they would remember the number of votes by which they were returned to this House, and they would remember that, although they are numerically superior in this House, the number of votes cast in their favour in the country was nearly equal to that cast in favour of the small opposition.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: This is not a time for thinking about votes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, yes—constitutional government.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway (Lieut.-Colonel Croft), I am not worried by thinking about votes; I should not have been talking about this but for the interruption of some of his friends, who do not seem to remember that, although they are in a numerical supremacy in this House, they do not represent the opinion of the country. I say that we have to bear that
in mind. The Leader of the House took. as his second dialectical argument, the question of provocativeness. What has been said this afternoon about provocativeness? How did the Leader of the House deal with that argument? He did not deal with it from the point of view that this Bill was not provocative; all that he said was that, if anything had happened between now and, say, Wednesday, which was the day he mentioned, and if it were introduced on Wednesday, then it would be more provocative still. That means, surely, that the Leader of the House accepts the criticism that this Bill is provocative, and that, because nothing has happened since Sunday in the negotiations which has lead to any disaster such as he contemplates, it is less provocative to-day than it would be on Wednesday.
I do not belong either to the Triple Alliance or to the Coalition. I represent, I suppose, the average onlooker at these events. I will tell the House what I think of it. During last week the miners were on strike. The railwaymen threatened to come out on Sunday night unless the Government entered into negotiations for a settlement of the strike. With his hand on his heart the Prime Minister on Thursday night, after the Unemployment Debate, told us and the country that he would never be threatened by the railwaymen into accepting a settlement of this strike. That was made for outside consumption. We know it was made for outside consumption because the Prime Minister, in spite of what he said, did settle with the miners on Saturday in spite of the protestation that he and his Government made. They have got to square themselves with the public and with the Members who support them in the Coalition, and they come here to-day and want us to believe that they are a courageous crowd of people and that they are not afraid of what is going to happen. As a matter of fact they are going to settle this coal strike, and they know it all the time, and this Bill is intro duced for outside consumption in order to show the great public of this country how little they are afraid of this organised industry outside pressing for its legitimate demands.
The third dialectical argument used by the Leader of the House was this. He said, "Supposing Parliament were not sitting." It suits the right hon. Gentleman
and his friends not to have Parliament sitting. The longer they can have Parliament in recess the better they are pleased. What nonsense to say Parliament cannot be called quite easily in emergencies of that kind. You, Sir, before the Recess, were endowed by this House with power to call the House together on 48 hours' notice for an affair which did not concern the people of this country, for a foreign affair, for a question of Poland and Russia. The same power that was given you to do that in a case of foreign emergency would readily and easily be conferred upon you in a domestic emergency. However much the Government may protest, they will never be able in what they say to-night or during the course of the Debate to make good to the people of this country any other than the view that this is a case of false pretences, that they are attempting to secure their own retreat and that they are doing it by a method which is alien to all the traditions of this House. I am

not going into the details of the Bill, because that would be unnecessary at this moment. We will consider this from line to line in Committee. But if this Government really honestly wishes us to believe that this is a matured scheme of theirs, that there is no coincidence between the events which are happening outside and the introduction of this Bill, they will have to give us very many more arguments and very many more facts to prove that they ever had it in their minds at all to introduce any such measure. I am loth to believe that when I read the Bill. If the Bill as printed is the matured judgment of this Government, Heaven help us when they introduce an emergency Bill on the spot.

Mr. BONAR LAW: rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 52.

Division No. 326.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Carr, W. Theodore
Glyn, Major Ralph


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Casey, T. w.
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gregory, Holman


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Greig, Colonel James William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gretton, Colonel John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Clough, Robert
Guest, Major O. (Leic, Loughboro')


Barlow, Sir Montague
Coats, Sir Stuart
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Barnston, Major Harry
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hall, Rt. Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.D'by)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hanna, George Boyle


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hills, Major John Waller


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hinds, John


Bigland, Alfred
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dixon, Captain Herbert
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hood, Joseph


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Donald, Thompson
Hope, Sir H.(Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.)


Blair, Reginald
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hopkins, John W. W.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hlllhead)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Howard, Major S. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fitzroy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hurd, Percy A.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Foreman, Henry
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Brown, T. W. (Down, North)
France, Gerald Ashburner
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bruton, Sir James
Frece, Sir Walter de
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jephcott, A. R.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gange, E. Stanley
Jesson, C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Gardiner, James
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Butcher, Sir John George
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gilbert, James Daniel
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Jones, Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simm, M. T.


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Nield, Sir Herbert
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Starkey, Captain John R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Norris Colonel Sir Henry G.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Stewart, Gershom


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Parker, James
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Sugden, W. H.


Lindsay, William Arthur
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Lloyd, George Butler
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Sutherland, Sir William


Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Pratt, John William
Taylor, J.


Lonsdale, James Rolston
Prescott, Major W. H.
Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)


Lorden, John William
Pulley, Charles Thornton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lynn, R. J.
Purchase, H. G.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)
Rae, H. Norman
Tryon, Major George Clement


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Vickers, Douglas


Macmaster, Donald
Ramsden, G. T.
Waddington, R.


M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Randles, Sir John S.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Waring, Major Walter


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Macquisten, F. A.
Reid, D. D.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Maddocks, Henry
Renwick, George
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Middlebrook, Sir William
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)
White, Lieut-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Whitla, Sir William


Moles, Thomas
Rodger, A. K.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Moison, Major John Elsdale
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie. (Reading)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Frederick


Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Morris, Richard
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morrison, Hugh
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Brldgeton)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Murchison, C. K.
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Nall, Major Joseph
Seager, Sir William



Neal, Arthur
Shaw, William T. (Forlar)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Captain Guest and Lord E. Talbot.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Brlg.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Briant, Frank
Lawson, John J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Cape, Thomas
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Mills, John Edmund
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wignall, James


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Glanville, Harold James
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wintringham, T.


Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Sexton, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)



Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. G. Thorne.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 55.

Division No. 327.]
AYES.
[8.15 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brassey, Major H. L. C.


Archdale, Edward Mervyn
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Breese, Major Charles E.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Benn, Capt. Sir l. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Brown, T. W. (Down, North)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Henry B.
Bruton, Sir James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bigland, Alfred
Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Blair, Reginald
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)


Barnston, Major Harry
Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Butcher, Sir John George


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Borwick, Major G. O.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry, N.)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Carr, W. Theodore
Hills, Major John Waller
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Carson, Ht. Hon. Sir Edward H.
Hinds, John
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Casey, T. W.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pratt, John William


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hood, Joseph
Prescott, Major W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling&Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., w.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Purchase, H. G.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rae, H. Norman


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hilthead)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Howard, Major S. G.
Ramsden, G. T.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hume-Willlams, Sir W. Ellis
Randies, Sir John S.


Clough, Robert
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hurd, Percy A.
Reid, D. D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Renwick, Geor


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberwell)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rodger, A. K.


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Jessen, C.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Jones, G. W. H:(Stoke Newington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Croft, Lieut-Colonel Henry Page
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Seager, Sir William


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Dockreil, Sir Maurice
Knights, Capt. H. N. (C'berwell, N.)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Donald, Thompson
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Simm, M. T.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Falcon, Captain Michael
Lindsay, William Arthur
Starkey, Captain John R.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Lloyd, George Butler
Steel, Major S. Strang


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lonsdale, James Rolston
Stewart, Gershom


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Lorden, John William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lynn, R. J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Foreman, Henry
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Sugden, W. H.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


France, Gerald Ashburner
Macmaster, Donald
Sutherland, Sir William


Frece, Sir Walter de
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Taylor, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Gange, E. Stanley
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James l.
Thomson, F. c. (Aberdeen, South)


Gardiner, James
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell. (Maryhill)


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Maddocks, Henry
Tryon, Major George Clement


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Middlebrook, Sir William
Vickers, Douglas


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Waddington, R.


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Moles, Thomas
Wallace, J.


Glyn, Major Ralph
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.
Moore, Major-Generai Sir Newton J.
Waring, Major Walter


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Weston, Colonel John W.


Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Gregory, Holman
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Greig, Colonel James William
Morris, Richard
Whitla, Sir William


Gretton, Colonel John
Morrison, Hugh
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Guest, Major O. (Lelc., Loughboro')
Murchison, C. K.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Guinness, Lieut-Col. Hon. W. E.
Nail, Major Joseph
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Neal, Arthur
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finehley)
Wise, Frederick


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l. W. D'by)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Hanna, George Boyle
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Worthington-Evans, Ht. Hon. Sir L.


Hanson, Sir Charles Augustin
Nield, Sir Herbert
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.



Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parker, James
Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenyan, Barnet


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Galbralth, Samuel
Lawson, John J.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Glanville, Harold James
Lunn, William


Briant, Frank
Grundy, T. W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cairns, John
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Mills, John Edmund


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hogge, James Myles
Morgan, Major D. Watts


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness and Ross)


Dawes, James Arthur
Jephcott, A. R.
Myers, Thomas


Devlin, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest




O'Connor, Thomas P.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wintringham, T.


Rose, Frank H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Sexton, James
Tootill, Robert
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)



Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Waterson, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sitch, Charles H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
Mr. Tyson Wilson and Mr. T.


Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)
Wignall, James
Griffiths.


Swan, J. E.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Cornell)



Question put, and agreed to.

IRELAND.

REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I shall endeavour, so far as I can, not to traverse the ground in the last speech which I made a few days ago. I take this second opportunity of raising this question of the so-called reprisals because they are still going on. Many of them have occurred since the last Debate. In my opinion these reprisals will go on until the Government make it clear that they are determined that they must come to an end. I hope that we may elicit from the Chief Secretary to-night a pronouncement quite different in tone from those which he has previously made on this subject, and that his repudiation and condemnation of these reprisals shall be in terms so clear that there may be a hope of their coming to an end, and if, as I fear, the Chief Secretary does not rise to the demand which I make upon him I warn him that, so far as the Rules and Orders of this House will permit me, I shall go on raising this question of reprisals until all the world knows of them, and the Government will have to yield if not to us to the shocked conscience of the whole world.
The first complaint which I have to make of the Government with regard to these reprisals is their consistent and persistent evasion of the real issue. Not only have they evaded the issue, but they have falsified it. The other night, towards the close of the Debate, I heard a speech by a gallant Admiral, who vindicated the vote he was about to give by the statement that he was going to stand by the soldiers and other servants of the Crown. This was a very natural misapprehension
on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he was the victim of the manœuvre of the Government not to face but to evade and misrepresent the issue. There have been individual cases of misconduct by the soldiers and by the police and the Black and Tans. Some of them have been already admitted, but a general charge against the soldiers and police is not the issue. The men I am arraigning are the Government, the high officials whom the Government controls. Most of the soldiers hate the hellish work, most of the police hate the hellish work, and even some of the Black and Tans now and then have shown their hatred of the hellish work. They are the servants, and I may even say the slaves of their masters. Their masters are the Government. The order for this policy came from the Government. The real criminals are the Government.
I have often asked myself during the War, who could be the man, what kind of human being he was, who invented the horrible system of bombarding peaceful cities like our own here in London? But I am wondering to-day who is the callous-hearted and calculating politician who set all these terrible things in motion? It is the work of politicians, and not the work primarily of even soldiers or policemen. I call it the work of politicians, by which I mean the Government, for this reason: First, that, with all its irregularities, there has been a system. A definite, thoroughly well thought out system. The frightfulness, indeed, has been as systematic as the frightfulness of Germany in Belgium. I am not. sure that it was not suggested by that great example. Everybody has remarked in connection with these incendiary occurrences that barrels of petroleum, torches, and all the other implements of war used in the burning of towns and villages with which we were made painfully familiar during the war in Belgium, have appeared at the incendiary outrages that have taken place in Ireland.
My great reason for putting the responsibility on the Government is the character of the defence made by the
Government. There is not a single speech made by a Member of the Government since this controversy began that has not excused and has not condoned, I may say that has not encouraged, this policy of frightfulness. I have already spoken of the evasion and falsification of the issue. Here is one case:
Are policemen,
said the Prime Minister,
to be shot like dogs, without attempting to defend themselves?
Has anybody asserted that the police should be shot like dogs without defending themselves? Has anybody found any fault with any policeman or soldier for preventing themselves from being shot like dogs? Then why is this said?
Here is another extract from that speech:
I will give you one case. Five policemen were driving along a road in Ireland. They were suddenly fired upon by civilians with soft-nosed explosive bullets. A second car with police came up in two minutes. They saw their comrades not merely murdered but mutilated. They found the men who were undoubtedly the assassins and shot them. That it called reprisals; that is called" murder.
That is not called reprisals. Whether I should call it a murder or not is a question to which two answers may be given. It may be said, and it is said, that the proper course for the officers of a free and responsible Government would have been to have captured these men, to have put them before the Courts and, if they were convicted, to have meted out punishment. I drop that point, for that is really not the issue. Policemen have a right, everyone acknowledges, to defend themselves against assassins, and so have the soldiers. But that again is not the issue. It is not that policemen or soldiers can defend themselves and shoot down assail ants that they see. The question is whether the soldiers and the police are justified in shooting down, not their assailants whose guilt is palpable, but in shooting down and persecuting and torturing men, women and children, who may be as innocent of the attack on the soldiers and the police as any man.

Captain CRAIG: On a point of Order. The terms on which the hon. Gentleman obtained leave to move the adjournment of the House was to draw attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the renewal since the last Debate in the House of Commons of the policy of
frightfulness in Ireland, by indiscriminate shooting, by floggings, by incendiary fires, and to the arming of Orange volunteers in Ulster as special constables. I wish to point out that up to the present the hon. Member has been employing himself simply in continuing the Debate which we had five days ago, and I ask a ruling on the question whether, under the terms of his Motion, he is not bound to confine himself entirely to matters which have occurred since the last Debate in the House, of Commons?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. and gallant Member is quite correct in saying that, in a Motion for the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10, a discussion must be confined to the matter raised in the notice on which the House granted permission. I took it that the hon. Member was leading up to and intending to deal only with incidents that have occurred since the recent Debate in the House. I hope he will keep to that point.

Mr. O'CONNOR: That is certainly my intention. If you see me wandering from the strict rule I trust that you, Sir, will pull me up, and I will at once obey your ruling. Of course I shall deal with the cases that have arisen since the recent Debate. But I think I am entitled to point out that these cases are dictated by a certain policy, and to indict that policy.

Captain CRAIG: On a further point of Order. May I submit that the question of the policy of the Government in this matter was decided five days ago in this House? We devoted a whole day to the discussion, and when a Division was taken it gave a large majority in favour of the Government's policy in Ireland. I submit, therefore, that it is not within the rights of the hon. Member on this occasion to discuss that policy. I submit, moreover, that his only right is to draw attention to anything which has happened since this matter was last discussed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He is entitled, surely, also to submit to the House that, in his opinion, what has happened since in Ireland does not point to the carrying out of the policy declared to the House by the Government on the last occasion. I took it that that was what he intended to do.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will make no further attempt to spike discussion, which I think is in the interest of everyone.

Captain CRAIG: I am afraid I can give no promise on that subject.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I want no promise. I am under the control of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and not under that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is not now in Belfast. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or in Lisburn!"] That is the policy which underlies everything that has taken place since our last Debate. The Government undertook that reprisals would be prevented. Reprisals have gone on and the Government has not, so far as I have seen, uttered a single word, either in condemnation of the so-called reprisals—frightfulness is the real name for them—but on the contrary the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary Has met every statement to which I have drawn his attention with a denial, with a statement either of blank ignorance or of violent disbelief. How can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that position? I have here before me a large number of extracts from papers which not only describe some of the acts of frightfulness, but witnesses actually give their pledged word that they have examined the persons on whom these cruelties and tortures have been inflicted, and have with their own eyes seen the fresh marks of the torture that have been inflicted upon these people. Has the right hon. Gentleman yet admitted a single case of flogging? Will the right hon. Gentleman again deny to-night that there has been no system of flogging? Since the last Debate there have been floggings in the West of Ireland. Men have been dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night; they have not been allowed to put on their clothes, or if they had put them on they have been compelled to take them off again and their bare backs have been flogged. Not only that, but in some cases pellets have been fired into them by the soldiers or the police. I have here two columns from a special correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian." It is a description of the attacks made on the Moycullen Cooperative Society just outside Galway, and is the story of the manager (Mr. Tallan):
On Monday afternoon, about twenty minutes past twelve, a lorry load of the 6th
Dragoons and mixed police (i.e., police in ordinary uniform, police with black caps and khaki uniform, police in civilian clothes), with rifles slung across their shoulders and revolvers, halted at the cross roads. They surrounded our store, a large building 60 feet square, with a cordon of soldiers with fixed bayonets. A man walked in and, holding up a rifle, told all the men to come out and put up their hands. One employee upstairs was a little time in coming, and a shot was fired in the corridor to bring him down. The staff of four men and myself were ordered outside and searched and then put with our backs against the wall. A policeman asked me my name and position. He were khaki with a black cap, and said: Understand, if Joyce is not returned before six o'clock to-night 100 Sinn Feiners will be shot and this village and this house go up to flames with the rest of them.' They then turned to the first man of the row, Walter McDonagh, and asked him if he knew anything about Joyce, who was missing. He replied he did not, and was hit on the face with the butt of a revolver. 'On my honour,' he said, 'I know nothing of the man. I have heard of him, that is all.' 'Well, we will make you know something,' was the reply. The questioner was a man carrying in one hand a revolver and in the other a whip and a leather thong. He were khaki breeches, a blue guernsey and a round, soft, knitted blue cap. He spoke with a slightly Cockney accent. 'I know nothing,' McDonagh repeated. 'Take off your trousers,' he was told. He was slow about it, and a man pulled them down for him. His waistcoat was torn off, and the man with the whip lashed him unmercifully, while two policemen stood with pointed rifles, one on each side.
Tim O'Connor was put through the same ordeal, asked the same question, and thrashed in the same way with trousers down. I protested 'That man is absolutely innocent.' but they would not listen to me. A bayonet was shoved into my face, and I was told to 'Shut up, you—.' 'We want Joyce or blood!' one shouted. They then said to us 'Clear immediately!'
As I was going away a policeman asked me my name. I said I was the manager. He said nothing, but walked away, and just as I was crossing the road he turned like lightning and raised his rifle. I put up my hand. He fired, and pellets struck me on the hand and on the nock and on the upper part of the arm, 32 altogether. I went inside the store, where the girls were in a terrified state, kneeling on the floor praying. the police sat on a wall across the road. After a few minutes they laid their rifles on the wall and emptied their magazines into the building, there being several volleys of rifle bullets and some rounds of small shot, for I heard the pellets dropping round. Several bullets pierced the roof, which is of composition. There were about twenty soldiers in the party, but I did not see an officer, as I looked for one to appeal to.
McDonagh was in a bad state. He fainted, and when he came to himself, tried to cycle home, but fell off the machine.
Here is a case described by Mr. Tallan:
The 'Black and Tans' knocked at the door about nine o'clock at night. The door was wide open, but they fired through it. They entered by the side door, covered him with revolvers, and accused him of being a Sinn Feiner, to which he replied that he was not, and had nothing to do with politics. Three remained with him, while the remaining 18 or 20 searched the house. They fired a couple of shots. All were drunk. They went away, leaving three behind. Mr. Tallan gave them tea, and they sat down to it. laying their revolvers on the table. At eleven they went away. At one o'clock in the morning two lorries drew up full of mixed police, and demanded tea for the lot. Some were well behaved, others were threatening. Mr. Tallan did his best to provide but no payment was offered.
On the next night two lorries coming from Oughterard fired shots into the store as they were passing.
There are several cases of other men who were taken out.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not these are occurrences which took place since the last Debate?

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am reading from a paper of last Friday, 22nd October, and I understand this is a record of proceedings that had taken place the night before. I do not think I would be justified in sickening the House with further cases, for I am sure the House must be sickened with this sort of proceeding which even in the 19th century would only be possible in countries like Turkey or Russia. Our position is not that soldiers and policemen should not defend themselves from their assailants. Our position is that perfectly innocent people, or people whose guilt nobody has attempted to prove, are subjected not only to murder, because many people have been murdered, but to floggings, under conditions which I am sure if they could be realised by the mass of the people of this country would wring from them cries of shame and indignation and incredulity that such a thing were possible under British Government.
My Motion deals also with the question of Belfast and of the last extraordinary performance of the Government, namely, the enrolling of Orange volunteers a? special constables. Both the House and myself have the advantage of the presence of the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin), who will be able to put the ease in the manner which he, of course, alone can do. I will just say
this. Here you have in the North of Ireland two peoples of different reeds and different blood. Those different creeds and races could have made a friendly and patriotic effort long ago on behalf of their country if it were not that Ireland was involved in British politics and if it had not been for the, question of rebellion which was brought forward by a certain number of political leaders in the North of Ireland. Matters nave recently burst into explosion, and there has been loss of life, and on the very morning of this situation in Ulster the Government have resolved on a policy of arming one race and one creed to keep the peace between the two races and two creeds. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary think that we do not see his tongue in his cheek when Le tells us that this offer is not confined to Ulster, but extends to all Ireland. He knows very well that nobody is taken in by that kind of thing. Let me, if I may, give the right hon. Gentleman a bit of friendly advice, and that is that that kind of breezy trans-Atlantic bluff does not go down with the Irish people. Let him put matters a little more frankly and with less bluff and camouflage. Nor are we taken in by the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that these are offers open to men of all creeds, races, and politics. That is not true. They may be open in theory, but we all know that what is meant is to arm the Orange volunteers so that they may have the lives and the liberties and the properly of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen at their disposal, armed with the guns which they get from the Government. I will deal with one one other point. I think the Chief Secretary gave some signs of irritation today when I quoted a speech by Governor Cox, the Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States. I do not know what the result of the presidential election may be, but I think some respect may be demanded from every sane English politician for a man who may be the ruler of 110,000,000 of people in a few months from now. Governor Cox in that speech declared that America had a right to make her views known with regard to the treatment of Ireland. There were some interruptions of an irritated character from some hon. Members when I alluded to the speech of Governor Cox, and I thought the right hon. Gentleman rather made himself the echo of that attitude. If there is any people in the world
who have not a right to take up that attitude it is the English people. There has never been, except in the case of Ireland, perhaps, and under the rule of Disraeli, a case of oppression, of wrongdoing in any country in the world, from the days of negro slavery down to the days of Armenian slavery, there has never been such a case in which the voice of England has not made itself heard, and in which the voice of England has not been one of the factors in liberating such people.
9.0 P.M.
That is one of the reasons why I am so angry with the policy of the Government. It is because of the injustice they are doing to the character, to the instincts, and to the repute of their own countrymen. I am old enough to remember the days when Lord John Russell helped to liberate Italy, when Palmerston de nounced the tyranny of Russian Poland. I am old enough to have taken part, more than forty years ago as a poor, humble, young man under the leadership of Gladstone, in protesting against the massacres by the Turkish Government in Bulgaria, and is not every Englishmen proud of the record of his country in being the voice of the conscience of the world outraged by tyranny? If that is so, England has no right to be surprised, England has no right to be shocked, and England has no right to complain if the shocked conscience of America asserts itself in favour of Ireland against such a policy of fright-fulness as that for which the Government is responsible. As I mentioned Governor Cox and his stern indictment of the policy of the Government, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman this. The British Empire has no firmer friend in the world, so far as her relations with America are concerned, than Governor Cox. The other day I read in the "Morning Post" an account of an interview between its very able representative in America and Governor Cox:
It would be. impertinent for me," said Governor Cox, "to discuss or criticise the action of the British Government, which, of course, I will not do; but one thing that prevents a perfect relationship between England and the United States is Ireland. Again, I will not go into a discussion of the causes or merits, rights or wrongs. I am merely stating a fact that is as well known to you as it is to me. I believe,
continued Governor Cox—and if I may say so it is language similar to that I
have often used in these Debates in this House—
that no greater crime can be committed against civilisation than for England and the United States not to be on good terms or for anything to be allowed to arise to drive the two countries apart and prevent them from working in harmony… do you not see how everything turns on the League of Nations? …Much of the opposition in England to Irish self-determination, as I gather, is based on the fear that Ireland, disunited from Great Britain, would be a menace to the safety of the Empire and to the peace of the world. With the League of Nations vitalised by America's membership, and Ireland a signatory to the Covenant, all just fears of this character would, I think, be removed.
I tell the Government to-night, and the people of this country, that the men both in England and in Ireland, and in the United States, who are most vehement in their protest against this hellish policy of frightfulness are the men who mean best to the future security of this country and the good relations between this country and the United States and other parts of the world. You are antagonising all these men. What do you hope by your policy? Does anybody outside this group of Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House—and I do not believe even they have the doctrine in their minds that I am about to declare—believe that this country can continue for ever to keep down Ireland's aspirations by might? Does anybody think that it is for the good of England that Ireland should be made more and more in deadly hostility to this country? I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has made ten Sinn Feiners for one, "a hundred Sinn Feiners for one, in every part of Ireland where this frightfulness has been practised. One of the most vehement on the bench of bishops against Sinn Feinism has heard three men murdered in the dark of the night—I think one or two since the last Debate—and the result of it is that this man, who hated and denounced Sinn Fein, has become a Sinn Feiner. His feelings of resentment against the Government are as strong as those of any Sinn Feiner in Ireland. I denounce this policy, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will come to the conclusion that it is neither for the good of England nor for the good of Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Motion. I wish to make this definite accusation: There is
a plot that has been arranged with the heads of the War Office in this country and a certain section of the Cabinet and the heads of the Army in Ireland by which certain persons have undertaken, if given a free hand, to apply to the disturbed parts of Ireland the methods that have been used for dealing with savage tribes on the north-west frontier of India, and they have guaranteed within a certain time to break the spirit of the Irish people. The methods they are using since the last Debate have been slightly modified. A show is made by the police, as in the case of Bandon, of putting out fires started in the night in a peaceable town by the soldiers, but ricks and growing crops are being destroyed on a systematic plan throughout the countryside. Buildings known to be in the possession of, or at one time kept by, prominent Republicans, who might or might not belong to the murder gang or by members or relatives of Members of this House who are Sinn Feiners, are burnt by soldiers under their officers with written instructions.
I am not speaking here from information received from unreliable sources, but from information received first hand from gentlemen who have come over from Ireland very recently. I received this afternoon a letter from Dublin written on Sunday night. I do not want to read extracts from the letter, but I am going to send it to the Chief Secretary, and I hope he will deal with the dreadful accusation there of the conduct of the military in Dublin; but it particularly mentions one case of a young woman whose confinement was due in about two months' time. A party of soldiers came to her house under an officer who spoke with a cultivated voice—an educated man—and he told this young woman, who was in a delicate state of health, that if they could capture her husband they would shoot him. They then set her house on fire. These are the methods by which it is hoped to break the spirit of the Irish people. I am going to send the letter to the Chief Secretary and I will show it to my hon. Friend opposite, if he doubts the facts. It is written by a man who served in the Army during the War and who says he is ashamed of the conduct of the military, acting, no doubt, under orders.
This plot is, I venture to hope, being enacted without the knowledge, and, at
any rate, I trust, against the wishes of the Chief Secretary. The same party which was behind the Orange Rebellion in 1912 are in power in the War Office now, and in the councils of Dublin Castle. The Commander-in-Chief of the army that was raised by hon. Members opposite is now the head of the War Office in London, and his minions are in power in Dublin, and have the high commands in the Army. This plot is being worked carefully out, and history will prove the truth of the words I am saying here to-night. Will the right hon. Gentleman call for the pamphlet that is being carried about now by Brigadier-General Crozier, and being shown to the ex-service men in what, I believe, is called the new auxiliary corps of the Royal Irish Constabulary? I had a letter over the week-end from one of these cadets, so called, asking me to press for the document in the possession of Brigadier-General Crozier, who, I understand, is in charge of training camps. He describes it as a hellish document which shows how to put down murders. I have not seen the document, but it is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman to look into, and I will send him the letter from this cadet. Since our last Debate, Athlone has been fired, and there have been terrible scenes of destruction at Bandon after the terrible murder, I admit, of soldiers who were ambushed at Ballinliassig. The troops broke barracks—how disciplined troops are allowed to break barracks in this way, and terrorise a town, I do not know—but they broke barracks, and the women and children, the old and sick, had to flee into the fields in this weather. That sort of thing is being done in Ireland to-day since the last Debate, and I repeat is being done as part of a deliberate plan of terrorism, and that is a thing we fought against in the War. In Bandon there was some show of police following after these soldiers who broke barracks and attempting to put out the fires.
These same Ulster Volunteers, whose chiefs, I say, are responsible for these acts of terrorism, have driven 5,000 Catholic workmen out of their employment in Belfast, of whom a thousand are ex-service men who fought in the War. Hon. Members cry out against ex-soldiers not being employed in this country, but, at any rate, these ex-soldiers were getting something to live upon, but the exsoldiers
driven' from work in Belfast are refused out-of-work donation by the same vile influences which are working in Ireland. There has been at least £1,000,000 worth of damage—the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) says more-caused by these factionfights in Belfast, and now so-called well-disposed persons are to be armed, equipped and organised, and then, I suppose, will have the same bloody licence to do what they like to the Catholic Irish in the, same policy of terrorism. It is ridiculous for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that he is going to rake Ireland for arms north, south, east, and west, and that he is going to arm these bigoted, vile, religious factionists. There is no religious bigotry in Ireland to-day, no religious persecution, except in the north-cast, where it is fostered by the rich linen interests who want their workers to be thinking about religion when they ought to be thinking about their economic conditions of life. The Uniurnsts and Protestants in the south and west of Ireland are. as safe as anywhere; in England. I have seen a good many of them. The Moderator of the Presbyterian Church has declared that no Protestant, as such, has been in any way hurt or persecuted in the south and west. It is only in the north-cast that this artificial lust, this artificial religious faction is planned, and those are the men who are going to be enrolled, as well as well-disposed persons. These men. who killed a policeman in the last few-weeks by shooting him, these men who, carrying the Union Jack, burned houses—I admit there has been killing on both sides in the. Recess—these same men are to be armeed, and used to keep so-called law and order in Ulster. If that is our latest policy for preserving order in Ireland, Heaven helo us all! In Poland they armed the soldiers against the Jews in the pogroms. In Ireland you are arming your fanatical Orangemen in the northeast against the Catholics. I hope the House will support the Motion brought forward by my hon. Friend. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting him. I can give the House harrowing details of what has happened since our last Debate. This policy of arson, flogging, and indiscriminate killing is going on because it is said to be successful. It will not be successful. I hope it will bring down the
Government before it brings down the British Empire.

Major HAMILTON: I must confess, as an Irishman, I deeply regret that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has allowed his Motion to be seconded by such a speech and such a Member as the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kcnworthy). We on these Benches view with equal horror as the hon. Member for the Scot land Division the tragedy in Ireland at the present time. If the statements which he has made are true, I for one, while giving my deep sympathy to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, hope that his strength, which I believe will be sufficient, will prevent any policemen or any soldiers taking part in reprisals of the type which my hon. Friend has detailed. When the hon. Member for Central Hull starts to lecture us I really feel that it is very difficult indeed to believe in this great plot, led by the head of the War Office, and organised with the permission of the Cabinet—this great plot that the hon. Member hurls at our heads. I believe that in the War Office we. still have a considerable number of English and Irish gentlemen who do not plot murder. I believe in the Cabinet we have men who have the confidence of this country. and who would hold in contempt any such scheme as the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I have no doubt he has obtained his information from Russia: from his Bolshevist friends there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I obtained it partly from men who have been in the War under as reputable circumstances as the hon. Member.

Major HAMILTON: We are not talking about fighting in the War. The hon. Member's reputation for fighting in the War is well known to most people in this House, and I should be very sorry to have to repeat it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was not talkina about myself.

Major HAMILTON: I should be sorry to repeat it here: but the hon. Gentleman has brought, religion into this question. He was talking about the Protestant bigots of Ulster. It is a curious thing, but the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion seemed to be chiefly concerned about American opinion. I am going to
combine the two speeches and to give American opinion. I do not know whether my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Connor) has read a book which has been in print for twelve months, which was originally published in America and very widely circulated in this country, a book called "A Straight Deal." This book was written by Mr. Owen Wisten, a very eminent American author, and a good friend of my hon. Friend opposite, I have no doubt, and also of many well-known statesmen in this country. The book was written with the object of making that feeling about which my hon. Friend is so anxious—the international feeling—between America and Great Britain better, and encouraging a brighter outlook and co-operation between the two great nations. What does Mr. Owen Wisten say on this question of religion and Ireland? On page 249 of his book he starts to quote half a dozen or more sermons preached by Roman Catholic priests. Mind, I am not making any attack upon the Roman Catholic religion. I believe from the bottom of my heart that all Christians ought to work together, and that any attack upon one religion, or upon the feelings associated with one religion, is wrong. I am, however, only quoting definite sermons. Those quoted in this book, I presume, must be accurate, or they would not be in print for the time they have been without having been contradicted by the Roman Catholic Church, which is powerful and rich enough to contradict these sermons if they are not true. I would draw the attention of the House to the dales of these sermons and also to the fact that, besides the dates being given, the names of the priests are also given.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Were they preached before the last Debate in this House?

Major HAMILTON: I do not think that really concerns the matter. I am trying to show that my hon. Friend, who spoke about religious feeling being heated by the action of the Protestants in Ulster, is most unfair in dealing with the general situation in Ireland. The reprisals about which the hon. Gentleman has raised this Debate are undoubtedly caused, in many cases, by very heated feeling which, in Ulster and all over Ireland, has been felt when they read this book. They have read many other illustrations, and they have heard
from their friends of the actions of such gentlemen as these priests. At Castletown, on 21st April, 1918, after Mass— and this was shortly after the Roman Catholic hierarchy had objected to the Conscription Act in Ireland—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman going a little wide of the mark? This was before the last Debate.

Major HAMILTON: As the hon. Gentleman opposite has said that religious differences are the cause of these troubles and are caused by the Protestant Church for religious purposes, surely I may quote sermons preached by the Roman Catholic Church whenever they were preached. They are still in print; they still exist.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will kindly hang his observations upon the last words of the matter on which the Adjournment has been moved, and show how they concern the enrolling and arming of Orange volunteers in Ulster as special constables.

Major HAMILTON: It is very difficult to hang that on to these words; but surely I can hang it on the previous speeches to which you took no objection.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am trying to help the hon. and gallant Gentleman by suggesting that he should connect his quotations with the Motion before the House, which suggests, in the last sentence, that religious subjects have been brought in.

Major HAMILTON: Thank you. I am very much obliged to you. I am glad you have called attention to the Resolution, which says there is great resentment in Ulster to these volunteers being armed. But I want to put this to the House, that these sermons, whenever they were preached by the leaders of the Christian religion, at whatever date, provided they are still in print, are inclined to engender heat on these questions. At Castledown, on 21st April, 1918, after Mass, Father Breanan said:
Resist conscription. If the police resort to force let the people kill the police. If soldiers support the police, treat them the same. Police and soldiers dying in their attempt to enforce conscription would die the enemies of God. Those who resist will
die in peace with God and under the benediction of His Church.
At Eyries, 28th April, 1918, a week later, after Mass to 300, Father Gerald Dennahy said:
Any Catholic who, as policeman or agent of the Government, assists in conscription shall be excommunicated and cursed by the Roman Catholic Church. The curse of God will follow him in every land. You can kill him at sight. God will bless you, and it will be the most acceptable sacrifice you can offer.
I do say that all the talk about religious bigotry and preventing the people of Ireland becoming constables, from endeavouring to protect. property and keep the peace and uphold a decent Government—to say that it is the Protestant religion which is causing these differences—well, no individual has said that from our side of the House or on our platforms in the country. We hate these religious references. The hon. Gentleman who proposed this Motion did not drag these in, but they were dragged in by the hon. Member for Central Hull who seconded the Motion. He hurls these tuants at us, and I must answer them. I must point out to him that we believe in real Christianity, No one who is a member of the Protestant Church would ever state that murder could receive the blessing of God. No one of us has said that God will bless those who commit murder. I say it is time we in this House and country realised that Ireland is suffering from an absolute debauch of murder, policemen shot in the back, soldiers murdered, civilians murdered. Then after the Debate we had the other night, it is considered necessary again to raise this question here, and again to hear these stories, when we know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is doing his utmost, to do what? To govern Ireland and to help Ireland back to decent conditions of civilisation and Christianity, and if only the hon. Gentleman, and not him so much as the hon. Gentleman for Central Hull, would not talk such a lot of nonsense, not only in this House but out on the platforms of the country, quoting anything he can find, always disbelieving the Ministers of the Crown, always thinking that Members at the War Office are plotting and planning murder, always imagining that the Cabinet is supporting them, if only he would cultivate a
little more sense, and if only he would try-to help the Government, then I believe we might have a chance of real support for the Chief Secretary of Ireland to get that country back to a decent condition of things.

Mr. CLYNES: I fear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken has scarcely done himself justice, moved so much as he has been by the feelings of indignation in his reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who preceded him, and I am not going to be led along the road of discussing the rival virtues of the rival religions in Ireland. This is not to us a Debate raised because of religious differences in Ireland, and we are less concerned with the sermons, whether ancient or recent. of certain clergymen in Ireland than with the Government in regard to its responsibility as to what is happening in Ireland at the present time. I wish to bring the attention of the House to the fact of how far the foundations of the law are being loosened in Ireland now, with virtually Government sanction and support, and how far that loosening is soon to have its effects in this country. I think that at Question time to-day the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary derided the evidence referred to as being printed in certain reputable English papers on the authority of the correspondents of those papers now in Ireland. I should like to supplement what has already been" submitted to the House under the head of this newspaper evidence by the summary which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" only this morning of what occurred in Dublin on Saturday night:
A raid by the ex-officers' auxiliary police corps in Sackville Street, Dublin, at 9 o'clock on Saturday night caused great alarm in this crowded thoroughfare, which was cleared by shots fired in the air. An English journalist was forced back to his hotel and followed into the hall by a police cadet, who threatened him with his revolver. A large billiard hall was raided, and one hundred men searched one by one, some of them being compelled to keep their hands above their heads for half an hour.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: They may have, all had revolvers in their pockets.

Mr. CLYNES: The report says:
One of the cadets warned the proprietor that if one of their men should be shot they would burn Sackville Street. The cadets fired shots in the streets as they departed, and two civilians were wounded.
It may be that people in this particular billard room were suspected of having revolvers in their pockets, but imagine any billiard room in London or in any part of the country where there was a like suspicion. Imagine this same procedure being followed by English soldiers or police to discover the offenders. We have not forgotten—no one ever can—the fact that there have been assassinations and murders of the most wicked and reprehensible type. We do not forget the duty of the Government or its responsibility in detecting and in punishing these murderers and assassins. What we are entitled to ask is this: Do the Government regard it right to burn property, to put under conditions of menace of the severest physical punishment people who are not even arrested and have not been, so far as they know or so far as we know, suspected of any offence or arrested for it, and who have never been tried or found guilty of anything? Is it the policy of the Government that it is right for their agents, the military and the police, in this manner to put pistols at the heads of the people, to go into the streets of the City at 9 o'clock at night and to treat civilians in this way? Is it right to go into the smaller villages, to set fire to the houses, and to flog, bayonet and treat people in the manner in which they have been treated? Is that the policy of the Government? If it is, if they are going to maintain silence, or seek to excuse it by declarations that it is human nature to hit back, they will find that they are only laying in this country a foundation of excuse for lawlessness and crime, for force and brutality which will cite for its justification the more recent pronouncements of the most powerful personages who occupy positions in this country. That is virtually what they are doing. As one who dreads the example that has been set in Ireland, evidently with Government sanction, I say I fear it because it is in the nature of things that this bad example should travel, and that what is excused and defended only a few miles away should soon be practised here as a right and proper thing merely on grounds of precedent.
As I sat and listened to the recital of recent events as given in the speech in which this Motion was moved, I remembered how deep was the feeling in this House in the years 1915–16 when hon. Members read extracts from the press of how the Germans were treating the
Belgians. I know there is a difference in degree in the scale, but clearly there is no difference in the object or the spirit in which these actions have been carried out or sanctioned. Yet no single representative in this House appeared to regard what was read to us with feelings of anything but unconcern and complacency; with almost the feeling that this was the right way to treat the Irish, and that now that murders have been committed it was only right and proper that somebody else should be murdered by the agents of the law. This House has ceased to be the repository of the law. If the idea is to crush the spirit of, at any rate, a considerable section of the nation by these means, it is clear that the whole lesson of history has been lost upon those who lead and guide the Government of the day. I am driven reluctantly by the attitude of those who speak for the Government, to the conclusion that this method of governing Ireland with these reprisals by the action of the military and police are part of a plan arranged here, and are carried out with the deliberate purpose of destroying the spirit of a people, and by that means they think they are reaching the people who have committed offences against the law. If it is not so, and these acts are not sanctioned and not to be excused by the Government, we are entitled to ask that they should not tolerate them, but stop them. They are as responsible for preventing breaches of the law by those who are the appointed agents of the law as they are responsible for detecting civilians who may commit crimes against the police or other persons.
A part of this Motion deals with the particular situation now being developed in part of Ulster, and with the newly announced policy of the Government in proposing to call upon well-disposed persons to volunteer to uphold the law, A considerable number of workmen in Belfast, amounting, I think, to some 5,000 odd, suffered for a long time all the privations that result from unemployment because their opinions were not popular amongst those whose numbers enabled them to prevent them from pursuing their ordinary employment. That is the situation in Belfast. Evidently opinion must not be tolerated, and a Sinn Feiner is to be regarded as one having no legal or other rights or social protection in
Ireland. Let this House face the question frankly and honestly. The trade unions in this country, however far they have gone in doing damage to trade or material property interests, have not gone the length of excusing these crimes or murders. It is that which is the burden of our complaint against the Government, and I allege that all the evidence seems to prove that these illegalities are part of a plan covered by occasional excuses and by other means about it being only in human nature to hit back and defend themselves against physical harm.
I can well understand certain Members of this House not desiring to have these matters discussed too often, but so long as they last we shall regard it as our business ceaselessly to bring the conduct of the Government before the world, because it is having a very damaging effect upon the minds of the industrial population. What has happened to the men in Belfast who have the right to work and have been denied it by the action of these well-disposed persons who are now being called upon for Assistance to maintain the law? The situation is this. Thousands of Orangemen who have already taken steps without the backing or the force of arms, such as the Government now are offering to them, have deprived other men of an opportunity of earning their living. These; thousands of men will be made still stronger because they will become the leaders and recognised embodiment of the law, and we can imagine how much further they will be able to carry their power to menace and prevent the peaceful pursuit of ordinary employment by men who would be peacefully engaged in industry if they were left alone.
As one who has some right in some degree to speak for Labour, I ask the Chief Secretary, what has he done in the North of Ireland so far to secure the resumption of work, to secure this right of opinion of even Sinn Feiners to peacefully pursue their ordinary daily avocation and earn their daily bread? As he knows, a deputation of Irish working men saw him not very long ago and some of us have discussed this matter with them. We understood that certain steps were Open to these men to secute them the right to work. What is being done in this direction? Furthermore, what does the right hon. Gentleman expect will follow from arming this one faction and
making them even more powerful than over for the sort of mischief which so far they have pursued?
The Government is entitled to protect criminals and punish them and to take the severest steps which the whole of its apparatus and machinery of government enables them to take to put down crime, but the Government which excuses the burnings, the bayoneting and floggings which have taken place to which innocent people have been subject in different parts of Ireland in recent weeks, you might call it anything but a Government, because it has ceased to be that, and we are entitled to call upon it to use its power, not merely to appeal to its instruments and its agents of the law not to do these things, but to take steps effectively to make it impossible that they shall do them in any part of Ireland.

Sir EDWARD CARSON: I do not desire in any way to add heat to the controversy with reference to Ireland, but I cannot help observing that in the discussion raised in this House to-night, and the one we had last week, all have reference, to protecting those who belong to the organisations that are murdering the police and officials, and we never have a Debate or a Motion to adjourn in sympathy with the hundreds of honest soldiers and police who are being attacked in various parts of Ireland. I should like the Chief Secretary, when he comes to reply, to tell us how many soldiers and police have lost their lives in Ireland since the last Debate. I read the other day—really it is a daily occurrence—of the ambushing of certain men in the Essex Regiment. Three soldiers who were going along the read were foully murdered and three more seriously wounded. I have not heard a word about that in this House. Why? The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House (Mr. Clynes) has no sympathy, I know, with this kind of outrage. But he has not told us that which would be of great assistance to His Majesty's Government.—he has not told us how when he is Prime Minister, as undoubtedly he will be one day, he will deal with this sort of thing. Will he let it go on with impunity? Will he say, "It does not matter; they are only soldiers, only policemen. It is their business to be murdered, and to be suddenly attacked on the highway in the discharge of their duties."
I hear a great deal in this House of the sufferers from all kinds of bigotry in Ireland. But I have never heard a word of suggestion as to how those who have to carry on the ordinary maintenance of the law and to protect life and property, are to be protected and safeguarded against an enemy who has openly declared war against this country. We get no assistance whatever on that branch of the subject. It is easy—and I could do it myself—to denounce lapses of the soldiers or police who break out when they see men shot to pieces with dum-dum bullets, their entrails hanging on the side of the road, their brains scattered over the pavement. It is easy to blame men while sitting down calmly, as some Members do, in 10, Downing Street, in armchairs, smoking cigars, and to say that these men ought not to mind these things as it is after all the business of the soldier or the policeman. The Chief Secretary was asked to-day at question time what he was going to do with the men who use dumdum bullets: would he treat them as they would be treated in time of war? He replied, "No," but added that they would be treated as men who were still at peace with this country. I think he is wrong.
Do let us have a fair picture on both sides of what is taking place in Ireland. These soldiers and policemen do not go out on these patrols for pleasure. They do not go out bee. use they wish to do so. They go out because it is part of their duty, and no matter how you may try, you will never get rid under any circumstances, not even trade union circumstances, in the consideration of these things, of human nature. It is that which governs everything. Do not let us be hypocritical in supposing that the policemen and soldiers in Ireland who see their comrades shot down like dogs, and worse than dogs, and who themselves know that they may be shot at to morrow, ought to possess all the virtues under the sun and that they are the only people who are not to be animated by human feelings. It is ridiculous. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite would say the right way is to concede the Irish demands, and thus get rid of the whole thing. I do not believe it would do that. I do not believe if you gave a republic to-morrow you would prevent a recurrence of these things in Ireland. They have gone on for 700 years, and you would not stop them the day after a republic was granted.
The right hon. Gentleman is always reasonable—my observation may be entirely wrong, but at any rate he appears to be always reasonable, and I am suspicious of very reasonable men. I would ask him this, pending the bringing round of this country to the establishment of a republic 20 miles from her shores, what would he do? That is a fair question.

Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to ask me many questions which I cannot answer now, but I do say that, whether the way we are suggesting be right or not. it is clear that the wrong way is in reprisals.

Sir E. CARSON: That is no answer to the question. I ask what the rieht hon. Gentleman thinks is the right way, and his answer carries me no forrader.

Mr. W. THORNE: You never tried the right way.

Sir E. CARSON: I want to know what is the right way. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) says we are going the wrong way. When he says that we are ontitled to ask him to go further and tell us what is the right way. He is a very responsible man in this country He ought to tell us what he would do. Would he allow these men to go on being murdered, slaughtered, and assassinated in broad daylight in the midst of the community with this Government responsible, or would be withdrow the froops from Ireland? It is no use talking in the air. It all comes down to a Belies of solemn facts. I am always being accused—I do not. mind it—of liking what is going on in Ireland. I loathe it; I detest it. But I think you ought to put the blame upon the right people. I certainly am not going to put the blame, so far as I have a voice in the matter, and I have very little, although I am supposed to be the mystery man behind the whole of these proceedings I certainly am not going to blame officers who are trying honestly to do their duty and to carry on the tomble employment which they are called upon to follow. We have received no assislance in this Debate, or in any previous Debate, as to how these matters ought to be dealt with. Let us get down to hard facts. Hon. Members know just as well as I do, and the Government knows as welk that there is an organised campaign of assassination in Ireland going on from day to day at the present moment. But
hon. Members probably do not know what I know, or otherwise they would not lend themselves to it, that Debates like this do more to encourage that campaign than anything which can possibly happen.
In the absence of any suggestion from any other source, I believe that the duty of this House, and the duty of the country, is to support the Government. Do you think that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Greenwood) has an agreeable task at the present time? When he goes out of this House, and everywhere else where he or his family go, he carries his life in his hand. You know that well, and he knows it; and you ought to back him. You ought to be proud of his courage. You ought to be glad that in a crisis of this kind you can get such a man; there are not too many of them knocking about—they like soft jobs. The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us has talked about the conduct of the working men in the yards in Belfast, who have refused to work with the Sinn Feiners. I do not object—I have no right to object—to his speaking about that, if he would only state the whole case. I can never understand the Labour party's thinking that the vilest class in Ireland are the Labour men—their own class—in the shipyards and in the linen trade in Belfast; and why? I wonder if they ever hunt up their trade union records, and find what percentage of those in benefit in trade unions are in Belfast? I venture to think that they would find that they are about 90 per cent. of the whole of Ireland. They are always down on them, and yet they are as solid, honest, and true trade unionists as ever lived. That is what the Labour party are coming to: they will not back trade unionists unless trade unionists follow their politics. They think it is a crime for a Belfast trade unionist to be a unionist, a loyalist, to wish to keep up his connection with this country. You value your connection with this country and your citizenship here so little that you cannot understand why any man in Ireland should wish to enjoy it.
Why are you always down on Belfast trade unionists? Is it because they follow me? Why do they follow me? You know as well as I do that a more independent body of men never lived than the trade unionists of Belfast; and you know that they only select me as a
leader in politics because I represent their views, and I represent them as honestly as I can. I know perfectly well what would happen to me if I represented them dishonestly—and I hope it would happen. Why, therefore, are you always down on them? Why should a Protestant in Ireland be such an enemy of yours? Putting it on the lowest ground, it is no crime to be either a Protestant or a Catholic or an Atheist, if a man is conscientious in his belief. Why are the trade unionists—it is the one thing I never can understand—why are they always down upon the Protestant Unionists in Belfast? I remember a trade union deputation coming to me in Belfast some time ago, and they said to me: "Look here, we have to import every ounce of coal from Scotland, we have to import every ounce of steel, and we build the best and the biggest ships that are turned out in the whole world. We are in better conditions than they are on the Clyde and the Mersey; we have made Belfast, and we are very proud of it." You ought to be proud of them too, but you go against them on every occasion. You believe everything against them that you see in every Sinn Fein paper, and you attribute to them the whole of what is taking place in Belfast at the present moment and think it is all their fault.
10.0 P.M.
Is it all their fault? Do you know what is happening there? Have you followed the course of events there? Do you know that, when you were all on platforms here telling your own trade unionists to go out and fight the Germans in the War of the world's freedom, your trade unionist fellows from the North of Ireland went out with your men here, and that, while they were away, their places and their houses were taken by men from the South and West, whom they found there when they came back, and they had to walk the streets without houses, while those men, whom you would not have looked at during the War, were taking their very jobs? And then they found men like Colonel Smyth—a brave Ulsterman of whom we are very proud—and his brother and all the rest of them, murdered in cold blood, doing their duty in Ireland. Are you ashamed of that? Are you sorry for that? I am sure you are. Why should not the Belfast men resent it? They were Ulstermen. Do you think it was a great crime that they should say," As long as
you are members of Sinn Fein, which has, as part of its organisation, a murder conspiracy of assassination and outrage which is killng off these men of whom we are proud, we will not work alongside of you"? Do you wonder at that? There you have the whole story, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us should think that there was some slur upon those men because they took that course. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: If, during the War, there were men in his own trade union who were standing beside men who were trying to bring victory to this country, and they were heard day by day pronouncing eulogisms upon and backing the Germans and their vile works, and his followers had said to them, "If you go on like this we will not stay here working side by side with you: either you or we go out," what would he have said to them? He would have said that they were right. It is the samo thing with these men in Belfast. I do not set up the man of Belfast as being the ideal citizen who, no matter how he is treated, is prepared to take it lying down. I do not set him up as the quiet lamb of civilisation; nor do I so set up the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He is a member of the Council of Direct Action, I believe. What is the good of pretending that this ideal existence is to be found everywhere but in Belfast? But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not believe what I am saying.

Mr. CLYNES: I believe you believe it.

Sir E. CARSON: That is as far as one can expect the right hon. Gentleman to go. He has given all this as a reason why there should not be this civilian force. Will he allow me to refer him, because this cannot be said to come from a tainted source, to a letter written the other day by the Rev. Nicholas Lawless, parish priest? He was asked to attend a meeting to protest against the expulsion of these Belfast workers. That gentleman is not in sympathy in religion with my friends at the shipyard. I am prouder of my friends in the shipyards than of any other friends I have in the whole world. He is there. He knows something about it. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman does not, but what he knows is got out of a particular class of newspaper. Here is what this reverend gentleman, who certainly
would not touch mc with a barge pole, says:
It seems to me you are beginning at the wrong end. The direct way to save our people in the North is to end at once the crimes which are disgracing Catholic Irish, North and South. It is these crimes that enrage, and no wonder, the workers of Belfast, who have said they will let the Catholic workers back when the shooting of R.I.C. men and others stops. When Catholics, clergy and laity, pluck up courage to grapple with secret societies and prevent their sending out murderous commands and compel them to give a dispensation to the unhappy youths they even have condemned to suicide, then let us stand in sackcloth and ashes with bread and water in our hands and tell the Belfast workers to sit on the stool of repentance. That will have more effect on them than the crimes of Republicans with more and more English troops to shoot them down.
This is by a clergyman in the North of Ireland, and surely he is not a prejudiced witness upon an occasion of this kind. I, above all others, in my old age loathe and detest this sort of thing, and naturally, if any any of you will consider for a moment, for I look forward under the Home Bule Bill to these people, whether they like it or not, having to live together in the future, and I tell those who trust me in the North of Ireland, here from my place in this House, that it is their duty to remember that, and to take care that nothing is done now which will prevent as soon as possible that amity under the Government which is set up, which alone can make it a success for both sides. No one in this House would desire to see, friendship between both of them more than I do, particularly at the present moment. Let us not impute to the Government unworthy motives and objects in the task they have before them.
That is all I have to say on that particular aspect of the case. I hope it is not irrelevant if I ask my light hon. Friend when will the Second Beading of the Education Bill be taken. The question of the education of the Irish people gees to the root of this matter. I wish more time were given to it than to many other questions that come before the House. How can you expect an enlightened state of society, how can you expect an absence of hooligans or illiterates, if you are satisfied, notwithstanding all that has been brought before you, that a great, progressive city like Belfast should go on day after day, month after month, year after year,
with 25,000 children per day who never see a school house and never get a chanco? That is where your responsibility comes in. Do not tell me it is not germane to the subject we are now discussing. We get off on these wrong tangents, and we do not get to the root of the matter. There are matters brought before us from the other side on which anyone could make a speech of reproach. Let us not get off on false tangents and on a false humanity, but let us do our best, doing justice to each side, to take care that the case is fairly represented. My right hon. Friend has been blamed for the institution of special police, and the right bon. Gentleman who has just addressed us seems to think it is a monstrous thing that these men should be put into that position. As for the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), of course, he says hell has been created. I suppose he knows what hell is. But after all. is it such an improper position? I think it is a wise step.

Mr. DEVLIN: Because it was your idea.

Sir E. CARSON: I do not think I am so vain as that. I have really got beyond that. The thing is too serious, and I can assure the hon. Member who represents a neighbouring constituency to mine that I have laftier ideas than my own petty suggestiens. I will tell you why. Do you think do not admit that I have hotheads behind me. Have you hot heads behind you? Has every leader hot-heads behind him, except the present Prime Minister They are dangerous people sometimes, though often the nicest followers you could have, but they all have their uses. I am certain that in every party, even in the party of the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) there are always a number of men who are just as keen about the cause as the hot heads and who do more For the cause because they are not hot-heads. Is it not a good thing to have these men in a responsible position' These men will cause confidence in the particular organisation and the cause to which they belong, and I think that when these special constables are instituted, if they are going to be instituted, there will be nobody more down on the hotheads than the special police who have the same ideals and the
same objects in view as the hotheads. If there was a railway strike could there be a better special constable than the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas)? I can see him with his baton going down the line, and there is not a man he would not keep in order. That is the way in all these matters if you get men to take the responsibility, and so far from abusing them for being willing to take the responsibility you ought to be grateful. Like everything else that is exaggerated in Ireland, it is said that this is only done for one lot. That is not true. As I read the newspapers, and I have no other information, I understand that anybody would be welcome who would undertake the job. It is not a pleasant job. To go out in the streets or into the alleys of either Belfast, Dublin, Cork, Limerick or any other place, and set yourself up as a target at the present day is not a pleasant job. The reality of the case is that there never was a more difficult situation with which a Government had to deal, and my last word to the House is, above all things, let us try to support a Government which in the difficult circumstances is trying to do its best.

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman is not only an eminent lawyer but a splendid actor. He has stood in his place to-night and one would imagine on hearing his speech that he was perhaps the most conservative apostle of law and order and the most violet anti-revolutionist that the world has ever known. Since he was able to gather tears into his voice with such perfection I should have imagined that he would have tendered some apology to the House for the rack and ruin which his policy has created in Ireland to-day. He was very eloquent in his denunciation of the murder of policemen. I am just as much opposed to the murder of policemen as he is. To me the murder of either a policeman or peasant is an outrage on civilisation. The preservation of human life ought to be the first and most sacred function of citizenship. I am in this happy position that I am different from the right hon. Gentleman for I never inspired either a murder or a rebellion.

Sir E. CARSON: I am not so sure of that,

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman is a fine cross examiner. Perhaps
he will give some incident where I ever did that.

Sir E. CARSON: What about the Land League?

Mr. DEVLIN: I was not in the Land League. The Land League was almost out of existence before I was born. It is characteristic of the unfairness of the right hon. Gentleman to make an observation of that sort. He has been allowed to stand there and without interruption level vile charges at anybody he liked to level them against, and then, sitting there, he makes an infamous suggestion of this character. The right hon. Gentleman was the organiser of a rebellion in Ulster, part of which was the gun-running in Ulster. He himself declared in this House, I think in my hearing, or in Belfast, indeed in several places, "eI am going over to Ireland to break every law in the country," and when he was engaged in the gun-running if policemen or soldiers had crossed his sacred path in his pursuit of that scientific preparation for rebellion, every one of these policemen or soldiers would have gone down mercilessly before his followers. Fortunately for himself he had the military on his side. Therefore he had not to fight. I believe that there vas a coastguard man who did attempt to do something to prevent the progress of the right hon. Gentleman's friends, and he was shot. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. In Larne. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. It does not matter where it was. Hon. Members know more about it than I do. They were there. The only victim was a coastguard, simply because he was the only man who stood in the way. But is there anyone in this House so destitute of intelligence as to believe that if soldiers or policemen had stood in the way of the onward progress of the right hon. Gentleman's militant friends in their march from rapine to murder, every one of these men would not have gone down?

Sir E. CARSON: Not one.

Mr. DEVLIN: Then was it a toy rebellion?

Sir E. CARSON: So you say.

Mr. DEVLIN: Was it merely camouflage? Was the gun-running merely part of the physical play-acting which is displayed intellectually in this House by the right hon. Gentleman? I say if it was a real rebellion then the right hon.
Gentleman was prepared to do all that was done by the Sinn Fciners or by any section of rebels in Ireland. If it was not the real thing, thon the English people were blinded and led astray to believe that Ulster would be up in arms if a moderate solution of the Irish problem was brought into operation. The right hon. Gentleman is always boasting of his frankness in the House of Commons. Why does he not be frank? He had not the courage either to condemn the pogrom in Belfast or to commend it. He actually taunted the Labour party in the House of Commons with sympathising with Sinn Feiners, who were murderers, men who took the place of the eminent patriots of his par y who went out to fight in the War. That is the picture he presents to the House of Commons. There never was a falser picture painted. As a matter of fact, I do not believe there were 10 per cent. of these men Sinn Feiners. There was a number of Protestant workmen driven out of Queen's Island because they were Labour men and Socialists. They were driven out of Queen's Island because their propaganda, their democratic ideas, their progressive spirit, their enlightening influence, were luring the ignorant followers of the right hon. Member for Duncairn from the darkness of their economic and industrial environment, and because they were rallying to the standard of a common democracy. [Laughter and Interruption.] An bon. Member interrupts. I know of no soft-nosed person here but himself. I would not mind the hon. Gentleman having a soft nose if he had not a soft head, but there are occasions when I like to have an argument with some person of intelligence like the right hon. Member for Duncairn.
I would like to tell the House why the pogrom took place. Because there are 25,000 of the children of the right hon. Gentleman's followers who have never been to school in their lives. He has told us that himself. Is it any wonder that their highest form of Christianity is to drive from their employment innocent men who are guilty of no crime or offence against anyone? It is not because they are murderers or because they are Sinn Feiners, but because they are Catholics. You would think, to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, that there never was
anything like it before, that these gentle lambs who follow him and who carried on this infamy a few months back, and cast countless men and women and little children into poverty and even starvation, were responsible for a rare event that was caused by the extraordinary political conditions of the moment. Why, these pogroms are almost as plentiful as the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and they occurred before there ever was a Sinn Feiner heard of in Belfast or in Ireland. One of my earliest recollections as a boy was the sight of hundreds of working men at Queen's Island being driven from their employment every time there was any sort of political crisis in regard to Home Rule. It is not new at all. When I find these hypocrites on the Front Opposition Bench. [Laughter.] It is natural that a person of my intelligence should be carried away in that way. I mean the hypocrites on the Ministerial Bench, who day after day stand up in the House and almost thrill you with the tragedy of the murder of a policeman here and the murder of another there, and yet have not a single word of sympathy for men against whom crimes have been perpetrated worse than murder, namely, driving them out of their employment. It is quite enough for a man to stand before a furnace, or in a shipyard, or in an ironworks to pursue his labour from eight o'clock in the morning till six o'clock in the evening without the feeling that after his work is done he will be waylaid and chased, not, I must frankly say, by the great body of the Island men or real trade unionists, but by an organised band of ruffians who are dragged at the chariot wheels of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun-cairn, and who are incited to do these deeds, not because of any natural indignation against murder, because every one of them is a potential murderer himself, but who do it because it is a political and industrial instrument in their hands for the purpose of smashing up that good democratic relationship which was springing up in Ulster, and growing and developing, and that is what you fear, and it is not Sinn Fein you fear. I therefore say to the House, when you hear the Chief Secretary, in pathetic accents and tearful voice, coming here and talking about murder and about persecution on the part of Sinn Feiners
in other parts of Ireland, let him come up to Belfast and preach peace instead of inflaming the passions of the mob, and let him do something to contribute to the bringing back of those men to their employment and to the creation of that friendly relationship which would exist if interested politicians did not drive these people asunder.
I have something to say about this pogrom. I notice that the Chief Secretary went down to Belfast lately and made a speech. He claims to be a very courageous man—no, he does not, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun-cairn says he is a courageous man, and of course that right hon. Gentleman is infallible in this House of Commons. Therefore he is a courageous man. In Belfast he denounced murder in the South and West of Ireland, but never from his life fell one word of protest amongst the leaders of the pogromists who were entertaining him there in royal state, and never one word did he utter in the festival hall of those gentlemen against the scandalous conduct which was carried on against those men. Will the House believe that these "pro-Germans," these "murderers," these "Sinn Feiners" are the men who returned me to this House against the candidature of Mr. de Valera, and that there are 1,500 of them who have fought in the War? The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny and it never has been denied, and I challenge denial, from any Member of this House that 3,000 of my constituents went out to the War.

Mr. MOLES: Forty-three thousand of ours.

Mr. DEVLIN: I know that the hon. Gentleman thinks he is a very important person, but he is not so important as to have forty-three thousand in his constituency who went out to the War. He had better engage in a little more mathematical calculations in order to be accurate when he places them before the House. In my constituency, with 8,000 of an electorate, 3,000 went out to the War, and the great bulk of these men are the victims of other men, who I do not believe went out to the War at all; that is, the men who organised and carried out this pogrom. When I read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the House of Commons the other day, and when he talked about these gallant soldiers who were fighting the glorious battle of the Empire in the village of
Balbriggan, I should imagine he would have said a word for the gallant soldiers, Nationalists, Constitutionalists, every one of them, who Were driven from the Queen s Island, and who made one great blunder, as I made it, that we ever dared to help you in an emergency, because you could not be true to any man. Those who have conducted the destinies of the Government of this country for the last ten years could not be faithful to anybody or anything, but all the same, they went out and fought, and I would have imagined that here was the place for the courageous man to stand up in the midst of all these festivities and tell these gentlemen that the first function of a real citizen was to put an end to this boycott, to reinstate these workers, and to endeavour to repay them for one of the foulest outrages that was ever committed against a people, but not a word of it.
It is a common thing now for Chief Secretaries for Ireland to go up to Belfast and to make there grand, eloquent denunciations against the other parts of Ireland, and then we are to have faith in the impartiality of a Government whose chief spokesman is inspired by a spirit of that character. But there were other men who did make references to the pogrom on the Queen's Island. There was a gentleman who holds the position of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, and he went up and made a speech, and he announced the policy of organising these special constables, and after he announced that the special constables were to be brought into operation—and this was a meeting of these pogromists called together under the chairmanship of the man who organised the pogrom—he went on to say:
He thought it only fair that he should he asked a question in return, and that was, 'Do I approve of the action you boys have taken in the past?' I say, 'Yes.' 
That gentleman is still in the Government and is Parliament Secretary to the Admiralty. That gentleman is the spokesman of your Government, going up among an impassioned crowd, and never a word of censure and never a word of comment from those who are so splendidly eloquent in their denunciations of the conduct of the people in the South and West of Ireland. All I have to say is this—I want to say it frankly—I was prevented from making a speech here last Wednesday,
and I am going to make it now. The Chief Secretary need not point to the clock, because he made a speech last Wednesday, and I believe three-quarters of it was a series of misstatements, and I will make my speech now if he speaks or not.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I gave way in order that the hon Member (Mr. Devlin) might speak.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not come back to this House because I like it—nothing of the sort. If I consulted my own personal opinions and convictions, I would not come within 20 miles of this House. I know that nothing that I or anyone else says for Ireland will have the slightest effect on this assembly. I merely use this House because I think it is the best platform from which I can address whatever is decently left of the spirit of English democracy in these islands and throughout the world. That is the only reason why I come here at all. The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech which he made here a few nights ago, said:
The Irish Nationalists have nothing to do with the difficulties of Ireland at the moment. There are no reprisals, or alleged reprisals, on Irish Nationalists.
I would not have occupied so much of the time of the House if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I came here to deal with the reprisals policy. I came here to say that a more infamous doctrine was never preached, that, because a policeman is shot here or a soldier shot there, there should be a war upon innocent people, that villages should be burnt, men flogged, and children hunted out in the dead of the night, cold and hungry, and a general hell created. Did not you get a Coercion Act? Was it not the most drastic Coercion Act ever passed in this country for the sister isle? Was there a single power you sought, however terrible, you did not get? Was that not enough? You let loose your servile tools, because I do not believe this so-called reprisal is a mere outburst of passion, although in some cases it may be, but I believe it is a deliberate policy organised by the Government, encouraged by the Government, and inspired by the Government, and it is not, mark you, a war upon Sinn Feiners or upon murderers alone. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are no reprisals, or alleged reprisals, on
Irish Nationalists. I have never been engaged in any work in my life in politics except two things. One of them was to win the freedom of my country by constitutional means; the other was to try to foment and foster the spirit of good will between the democracies of these two islands. There was just another, and that was during the last two years to work night and day for the discharged soldiers in Ireland for whom I was, with Mr. Redmond, largely responsible. The right hon. Gentleman, if he will permit me to say so, and does not regard it as a breach of confidence—his letter was not marked "private"—wrote to me saying, "The soldiers of Ireland ought to be grateful to you for what you have done and are doing for them." What happened to me the other day in my office, in Dublin, of the United Irish League, where the work has been practically suspended? Armed men smashed and opened the doors of that building. They broke open a safe, and dragged the documents out of it. My bag, which was there with a key in it, was torn asunder, panels of priceless value in this old historic house were smashed to atoms, and a thousand soldiers' letters, which were locked in drawers, were scattered all over the building, and two ladies, the daughters of a lately respected Member of this House, who were employed in the place, were frightened almost to death—they were the only occupants of the House at the time—by the armed minions of the Government, who broke into this office of a constitutional organisation. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says there are no reprisals. He wants evidence. There is evidence. That is only one of the countless proofs we could give of the organised villainy that is carried on by an infamous military machine, heartless and conscienceless, a danger to the Empire and a curse to Ireland.
What is their latest performance? They are maddening the whole people of Ireland. I cannot conceive what is their mission or their purpose. There is hardly a Constitutionalist left in the country. I have only one comfort in being a Constitutionalist, and that last comfort left is that I detest and loathe this Government worse than any Sinn Feiner. The Government broke up the Constitutional movement when they started their policy of petty persecutions, their searches, their
midnight raids, etc., for there were no murders in Ireland then. Compare the number of murders in Ireland with those recorded two years ago when this policy was started. When your military machine crushed deeper and fell more powerfully upon the race, the murders increased day by day. All your dealings, your horrors and tragedies are driving away every man with decent and moderate instincts, who was hopeful for his country's welfare. He looks everywhere now without faith, and seemingly with such blackness that there is not a single glimmer of light. You are driving every man not only to hate you, but the very British Empire itself. What are they doing now? I would ask the House of Commons which has swallowed many and all things against Ireland, to note what the Government proposes to do now. What they propose was announced at a meeting of the pogromists. I frankly tell you this, I am without any power in Ireland now, I have none whatever. But if I had power, if I thought I could do it, honestly if I believed I could do it, I would go out to-morrow and would organise special constables to fight your special constables. That is what I would do. What do the Government propose to do to get special constables?
Sir Ernest Clarke came to me to consult me about this thing and he asked me to co-operate with the authorities. I put the question to Sir Ernest Clarke: "What do you want the special constables for?" He said to preserve law and to maintain order. "But," I told Sir E. Clarke, "I have always heard the excuse offered to the Government, after they turned Ireland into a state of hell and chaos, that it was all done because law must be maintained and order preserved." "If," I said, "you are going to preserve peace and if you are going to turn three provinces of Ireland into a regular hell in order to preserve peace and order through the operations of your military and police, why do you not apply the same principle to Ulster, and why should you ask for special constables in Ulster to do it?" And he could not answer me. Why? Because this suggestion has come from the friends of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson). This suggestion is to arm these people in the six counties, especially Belfast. The Chief Secretary told us in a speech the other day he was
going to rake Ireland from end to end for arms, yet he is going to arm "pogromists" to murder the Catholics. These will be going along as peaceful, lawabiding citizens. Happily we have the character of the men who will be these special constables. One of them was arrested in the midst of the riots at Belfast for looting. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman to-day about Lisburn. Three of the special constables were convicted—

Mr. MOLES: Are awaiting their trial!

Mr. DEVLIN: If you English lovers of justice tolerate this sort of thing, you will tolerate anything. Three hundred special constables resigned their position because the three looters, belonging to their class, were arrested by the police. And it is to The Mercy of these men that 500,000 of we Belfast Catholics are to be left. The Protestants are to be armed, for we would not touch your special constabularyship with a forty-foot pole. Their pogrom is to be made less difficult. Instead of pavingstones and sticks they are to be given rifles. That is how civil war is to be prevented in Ireland and in Ulster. It is impossible to speak with patience of what is going on over there. Englishmen have no conception of it; if they had they would hide their heads in shame. I remember one of my brightest and happiest memories was of a visit I paid nearly 20 years ago to Liverpool to hear the last speech of Mr. Gladstone. I had never heard him, and I thought it was the opportunity of my life. I went over to Liverpool, and there was a great meeting in Hengler's circus. It was a meeting of protest against the Turkish atrocities in Armenia. I looked at that vast gathering, and at the vast cheering and thrilling crowds that followed Mr. Gladstone when he left the hall, and I said, "After all, there are some splendid instincts in a nation far, far away from the scene of these operations when it can be aroused to indignation against Turkish atrocities in Armenia." I tell the House frankly that there are things going on in Ireland worse than ever occurred under the Turkish yoke in Armenia. Believe me, we shall survive it. My shame is for England and that there is no great moral teacher and preacher like Mr. Gladstone, who ought, in all the fervour of a passion ate apostle—

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Kenworthy!

Mr. DEVLIN: At all events, if he is not pompous, he is honest. I do not agree with him always, but let me say this that it is a rare thing to hear any voice raised for any great and holy cause,. and the man who raises it is a friend of mine. One of the greatest calamities. that can befall the British race is to find that all these things are possible; that people seem to acquiesce in them or to take no interest in them; that there is not some great voice to inflame genuine indignation and to educate the masses of the country in a knowledge of what is going on in Ireland.
The England of Gladstone and of Bright has disappeared. The England of this House of Commons—profiteers, self-interested, the claimors of seats that are slipping away from them, the expediency politicians playing fast and loose with principles on the Front Bench, irrespective of the evil consequences that may come to these islands and the British if these things go on. England is losing the friendship of France; it has lost the friendship of America. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Your Colonies are up in arms [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] You are making enemies in every country in Europe and in every country in the world by your Irish policy. When an Irish Member comes here, with two or three others alone, to plead the cause of right and justice for our crushed and agonising country, you think you can overwhelm us with your votes. A greater power than you shouted liberty down, as you shout it down. That was Germany. It gained an enduring influence on the nation's will. It was as great a machine, though 'not more cruel, than is yours in Ireland. That machine was broken and that country destroyed. The only things that can make a nation great are justice, freedom and liberty. Destroy them and you destroy yourselves. For, when you have settled this transient transaction which is in your hands, the spirit of the Irish race for freedom, irresistible, unquenchable, indestructible, will be there. You may think to crush by force a section of the people, but the spirit will live on and go on. I regret that it will be difficult to settle this question in the future. There are memories of flogged men, of young fellows brought out before their fathers and mothers and shot. The right hon. Gentleman has a son of his own, and
he ought to think what it would be to him if, because somebody was murdered five streets down the soldiers came into his house and murdered his son. There never yet was any human power that could withstand such actions.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: For the first time in the history of this House, those who support a Motion for the Adjournment have compelled the Minister in charge of the Department involved to reply within three minutes. I always welcome the raising of the Irish problem in any place, in order that one may deal with it from the point of view of the Irish Secretary. Since our last Debate—when the House carried by a very large majority a Motion in favour of the policy of the Government—here are some of the hard and cruel facts of Irish disturbances: Three soldiers killed and eight wounded, eleven Royal Irish Constabulary murdered and twelve wounded, three civilians murdered and three wounded, three sentries fired at, three police barracks destroyed, and two different servants of the Crown fired at, or their homes destroyed.
The policy of the Government has succeeded, and succeeded rapidly. The total number of outrages has rapidly decreased. The issue is now between the assassins of the Irish Republican Army and the British Government. All I ask the House of Commons is to support me and the Government not in opposing Sinn Fein or the Irish language—for we have never clone that—but in tracking down, as we are doing, these assassins, who bar the way to any settlement of the Irish political question. This Motion again raises the question of reprisals. There was only one case quoted, and that in general terms, dealing with the alleged flogging of a couple of men.
The hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) referred to Belfast and the labour difficulty there. What is the difficulty? It is not the Government's difficulty, but a quarrel between members of the same trade union, one set refusing to work with another. I appointed Sir Ernest Clarke to go to Ulster, among other purposes to try and settle the question. He did his best, and so did the Lord Mayor. The employers did their best, and we had terms arranged for these expelled workers
to go back to the yard three or four weeks ago. But on the Sunday preceding the Monday on which they were to return, some brutal Sinn Feiner shot and murdered a policeman in the streets of Belfast. I dealt with murder in Belfast, because murder is the curse of Ireland, in the industrial world of Belfast, as well as in the political world of the rest of Ireland. I have done my best to get these expelled workers back, and the speech of the hon. Member for the Falls Division, long as it was, has done nothing to help the return of those men.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

AIR NAVIGATION [CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENSES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of such sums as may be required for the contribution from the United Kingdom under any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to a convention for regulating air navigation, and to make further provision for the control and regulation of aviation; and
(b) of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Air Council in the exercise of their powers under any such Act."

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [MONEY] (No. 2).

Resolution reported
That it is expedient for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the better government of Ireland,—

(1) To authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, or out of moneys provided by Parliament, into the Exchequers of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, or to any body or person in the stead of the said Exchequers,—

(a) in each year of the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes as defined by the said Act, including payments on account of that share
1509
(b) of such sums as the Joint Exchequer Board may certify to be necessary for the purpose of providing buildings (including sites and equipment) for the accommodation of the Parliaments and public departments in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, respectively;
(c) on the redemption of an existing purchase annuity as defined by the said Act, of a sum equal to the amount thereof in each year in which the annuity if unredeemed would have continued payable;
(2) To authorise the payment in each year out of moneys provided by Parliament to the appropriate fund or account,—

(a) of a sum equal to the amount payable in that year in respect of purchase annuities as defined by the said Act;
(b) of a sum equal to the amount due on account of loans made before the appointed day to authorities and persons in Ireland out of public funds;
(3) To authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the salary or remuneration payable to the Chairman of the Joint Exchequer Board."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. HOGGE: It is a rather tall order to ask the House to-night to pass this Resolution, which we discussed so recently as Friday afternoon last at some length and in considerable detail, and when the reply we received from the Government was not such as to assure us that we were making a contribution in finance that was reasonable so far as this House was concerned. On that afternoon I raised the question, among other things, of the destruction of property in Ireland, and I had the agreement of my light hon. Friend the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) in estimating the damage that had been done to property in that country at £2,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) said that I had vastly underestimated the amount of the damages. We were told by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) that, as a matter of fact, these damages will have really no effect upon his estimate—which, the House will remember, was made as far back as May, 1920—in so far as these damages are recoverable from the ratepayers in the locality in which the damage was done At Question time to-day a question was put down about these damages, and I myself put a supplementary
question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to who would be responsible for the damage, supposing that they could not be collected from the ratepayers. That question was disposed of by a wave of the hand. As a matter of fact, it is common knowledge, apart altogether from any bias on either side of the House, that a very considerable amount of damage has occurred in Ireland as a result of the political situation. Balbriggan is a case which has been mentioned in this House on more than one occasion—

Mr. SPEAKER: How does that come under this Resolution? This Resolution deals with the Government of Ireland Bill. I do not see how Balbriggan, or any other place, comes under that.

Mr. HOGGE: The reason why I suggest it to you, very respectfully, is that under this Resolution we are taking a sum of £18,000,000 as the contribution from Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer. That £18,000,000 is arrived at by taking the difference between the expenditure for Irish services and the revenue which is to be derived from Ireland. The revenue which is to be derived from Ireland is, of course, collected from Irish sources, and if those Irish sources are depleted as a result of the destruction of property and business in Ireland, it is obvious that the £18,000,000 cannot be obtained.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather difficult to follow that, and rather indirect. Supposing that the Government of Ireland Bill does not go on at all, the Balbriggan indemnity will still be payable, according to the hon. Member's argument. This Balbriggan indemnity is quite independent of the Government of Ireland Bill, and any discussion on the Bill has nothing to do with the Balbriggan indemnity.

Mr. HOGGE: I would respectfully suggest this: It is quite true that, whether the Bill goes on or not, the Balbriggan indemnity will require to be levied upon the ratepayers in the Balbriggan district; but if property in the Balbriggan district, to take one example only, is destroyed, then the revenue estimated to be derivable from Ireland cannot be obtained. Obviously, for instance, if a factory, as in the case of Balbriggan, is burned down and the business destroyed, no taxes can be collected from that subject; and that is the case not only in Balbriggan but in many other parts of Ireland. My case
would be that my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio has overestimated by a very long way the amount of revenue that will be derivable from Ireland, and that, in voting this money, we are voting altogether a false sum.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I do not follow the hon. Member now. The objection which he has is that the sum which it is suggested that Ireland shall pay is too large, but I fail to see that Balbriggan has anything to do with it whatever.

Mr. HOGGE: If you agree that the sum is too large—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not agree to that at all. I do not acknowledge that. I say it is the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. HOGGE: Then, of course, I can continue?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not about Balbriggan. Balbriggan seems to be wholly outside the argument.

Mr. HOGGE: I will remove the case of Balbriggan from the argument with pleasure. My argument is that this Financial Resolution is based upon a series of figures which assume that Ireland is able to pay out of revenue a certain sum. We hold that certain events which have occurred have made it absolutely impossible for that sum to be realisable, and, therefore, this Financial Resolution; which suggests that £18,000,000 will be the amount that Ireland makes in Imperial contribution to this country, is not to be realised, and is not likely to be realised, and that, therefore, we ought to have from the Minister in charge some facts which are brought up to date. The Minister in charge of the Resolution on Friday gave in support of his argument figures which had been brought out in a White Paper dated May, 1920. That means that those figures were arrived at long before May, 1920, assuming that some three months were taken to get them out, since these sources of revenue from which you can derive payment from Ireland have seriously diminished, and before we proceed with the financial clauses of the Home Rule Bill we ought as a business transaction to be in a position to know how much we really are to pay. I suggest that before we agree to this we ought to have some argument advanced from
the other side to prove that this will be all that we are required to pay. I remember that the other day the right hon. Gentleman said that some £9,250,000 were reserved to the Irish Exchequer, or the two Parliaments, out of the surplus, and he suggested that that would be sufficient to cover any exigencies of that kind. Those figures were challenged by the right hon. Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson), who said he doubted very much whether that £9,250,000 would ever be available for that purpose. Those of us who are not Irishmen and are not intimate with the financial figures cannot say, one way or the other, whether that is true or not, but I am suggesting that, before we agree to the Report stage of the Resolution, we ought really to know whether those figures are ample to cover the outside figure named by the right hon. Gentleman. I could not agree to the Report stage of the Resolution unless he can assure the House and give arguments and figures in favour of his belief that we can limit the contribution of Ireland to this country to £18,000,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I want to make one last protest against this Financial Resolution. The £18,000,000 that, in theory, we are going to extract from Ireland under this arrangement, I do not believe can possibly stand Opinion in all parts of Ireland and of all States is quite opposed to it, and the Government will have to modify it. I do not think for one thing that the proposed system of taxation, where you have one body in Ireland able to levy Death Duties and unable to levy Income Tax, and this Parliament able to levy Income Tax and unable to levy Death Duties, will work. I give that as one example out of many that I could quote, and I am convinced that the whole arrangement we are now discussing will not last, and will have to be modified. I rather think when the final Resolution is come to, and I hope seriously it will be soon, we shall have very seriously to discuss the question of the Imperial contribution from Ireland, especially in regard to the so-called War Debt. I spoke very briefly upon this matter on the last occasion, and I seem to have been taken up on that point by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). I do not think we can ask logically for a direct contribution from Ireland if she
is made fiscally independent of this country. Any system of self-government in Ireland—and I do not wish to be controversial now—that is going to work must maintain her fiscal independence. If under those conditions the Irish fiscal system provides for its own war invalids, and pensions for widows, and if in addition they undertake to be responsible for the payment of interest on War Loan held by Irishmen whose normal place of residence is in Ireland; and if Ireland, as I hope, makes some direct contribution for her own defence, then a poor country such as she is, without great industries except in one part, will be doing pretty well by us. Although it may seem a tall order to say that in future we shall not receive a direct contribution from Ireland, I think that if we come to discuss the matter in a businesslike way it will be found that a solution such as I suggest will be the best. From discussion I have had with Irishmen of all shades of opinion during the Recess on the financial provisions of the Bill, I think I am right in saying that Irish opinion generally inclines towards that solution. There is going to be a great re-adjustment of war debts everywhere. We shall all have to alter our ideas about war debt. There is going to be a wiping off of more debts between our Allies and possibly between this country and the Dominions. I am told that President Wilson came over to the Peace Conference with a plan approved by the American Cabinet for wiping out the War Debt of France and England with America, but owing to what happened in Paris he was so disillusioned that he went back with that plan in his pocket, and it would be impossible now to get a Cabinet in America to carry it through. I only mention this as an illustration of the way in which we shall have to adjust these debts, and I think that in laying down this contribution of £18,000,000 from Ireland we are making a mistake which we shall have to correct in the future.

Major BARNES: This Financial Resolution provides for the erection of Parliament buildings and buildings for Government Departments, and it also provides that a certain amount of money
can be expended on those buildings; "such money as shall be certified by the Joint Exchequer Board." This Resolution contemplates the possibility of there being no Parliament for Southern Ireland. If there is no Parliament for Southern Ireland, there will be no Exchequer for Southern Ireland, and if there is no Exchequer for Southern Ireland there will be no Joint Exchequer Board, and if there is no Joint Exchequer Board apparently there will not be any authority able to certify money for the erection of Parliament buildings. I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will explain how that difficulty is to be got over.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON EVANS: (Minister without Portfolio)
The hon. Member has questioned me about a sort of house that Jack built, and finally sought to prove that there will be no Joint Exchequer Board. Under the Amendment on the Paper known as the First Lord's Amendment, there will always be a parliament in Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. If the electors do not elect a parliament then a parliament will be nominated, and having been nominated there will be a representative of Southern or Northern Ireland, as the case may be, on the Joint Exchequer Board. The Joint Exchequer Board will function exactly as under the Bill. The speeches of hon. Members repeat more or less points which were raised on Friday, and as I replied to these points on Friday I do not think that it would be fair to ask the House to listen to me again.

The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn"

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes after Eleven o'clock.